A HEALTHY political topic.

Hopefully this won?t turn into a religious thread.

If you keep up with American news at all you would have seen various states legalizing gay marriage.

In my state, Oregon, a county (Multnomah for the 2 other Oregonians) has legalized it, however, gay couples who got married might now have to face imprisonment because the state had not passed gay marriage as a law.

My stance on this whole issue is that: what's the big deal?

At this point in our history the original idea of marriage is not what is held in churches and one hour stops in Las Vegas.

The whole point of marriage is a HOLY union between two people, man and woman. The second that divorce, alimony, child support, and judges being able to marry individuals got involved, marriage really became a legal binding agreement.

I respect the ideas of marriage; I plan on getting married at some point. But, as our society treats it today it really isn't marriage. Marriage to me is more or less the bond and responsibility you feel for the person you're married to, not to mention your family.

In this fiasco people have been rioting saying that gay marriage is immoral and religiously wrong. Not to mention that many of these individuals could very well be on their fifth marriage and haven't prayed in several years. They're being hypocritical.

I don't support Gay marriage, but I don't knock it. I don't care if a gay couple gets married, because all marriage is anymore, besides a personal bond you have with a person which you poses before you actually marry them, is just for social status. It's sad, but it's true.

So, in all my rambling, what are your opinions on this?

Please, reframe from gay bashing and mindless religious preaching, as in just saying "it's wrong". Because saying "it's wrong" doesn't mean anything, not since Marriage became legality.

^^^ what he said.

Not allowing gays to be married is discrimination. That's that.

George Bush is a self-righteous bigot and can go to hell.

Living near San Francisco, the US gay marriage issue is pretty big at in my area and school. At first, I thought the marriages themselves were fine, but that it was not right to go straight through the law and a measure that proved that Californians did not want this.

While I still don't believe it was any place of Newsom's to do this, I realized that law and justice were not in accord here. Remember, the Nurmenburg (sp?) trials held that there are some laws of the state which we as human beings can and should hold to be wrong out of our own judgement, and I think that standard applies here.

George Bush is doing this to win back conservative allies, it's as simple as that, which is a shame.

Homosexuality is not a natural thing by most all accounts - that is to say, a facet of animals that is evolved - but I don't believe that makes it at all wrong. Homosexuality does occur in nature. All sexual attraction is for the opposite sex (that's what it's about, of course) so I think homosexuality is just a misdirection of that. However, that doesn't mean that can create long term relationships and love, so there's no point in prohibiting it.

Sonds like the pretty unainmous agreement on this. wHoe really cares? if they want to get married, let them do it!

all theyre bothered about is the association with religion, let them marry without any religious association & there will be nothing to discuss.

However, what people are whining about is that the gay couples want to be married, and that alone is a religious connection....at least in their eyes.

it doesnt have to be normal marriage. if changes are going to be made, make a marriage that involves no religion. tbh, id prefer marriage without religious connections

I believe that any kind of gay action is expressly forbidden by the bible, so basically any 'holy' marriage is wrong, and priests (including anglican ones.. :rolleyes: ) are going against what they believe.

However, christians don't 'own' marriage, like they don't 'own' Christmas any more. I'm not against some gay marriage- I personally find it pretty revolting though, but hey, I'm allowed my own opinions- but I think it's wrong to bring up a child within such a relationship (gay or lesbian). Kids need stability and the '2 sides' like that when they grow up, and you're living in a pretty sorry culture if you don't need that any more.

And are these states allowed to legalise it in this way? I hope they're not being completely irresponsible.

you dont need both parents, but two of the same could well change your view on things I agree. I find it pretty disgusting tbh but if thats what they want to do, let them bugger off & do it.

I am with gay marriage (let them do what they want), but I am against gay couples adopting a child. Why condemn that child to an almost certain psychological desequilibrium ?

First time I read about Bush trying to ban Gay Marriage, I just couldn't beleive it. It's hard to imagine how someone could be that conservative. Futhermore, it's even harder to beleive that people actually support him. When I read about it, I interpreted it as the final nail in Bush's coffin, but it seems it could have the opposite effect, which is just awful if you ask me.

To all the (hitherto) self-centred far right anti-gay marriage peoples out there: since when did gay marriage become something that affects you to such an extent that you feel you must outlaw it in your constitution?

Kain: You remind me of a quote on bash.org:

<CharoNoMe> Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

I am with gay marriage (let them do what they want), but I am against gay couples adopting a child. Why condemn that child to an almost certain psychological desequilibrium ?

In actual fact, it's more likely for a child who comes from a straight family to have "certain psychological desequilibrium". Remember, gay people who decided to have children will want one, and will take care of them to their fullest, because it was their choice. However, straight couples don't always decide to have children, and thus sometimes don't bother to care for them. Gay couples can't have kids by accident.

As a side note, children raised by gay couples also grow up to be more open minded indidividuals, so I say, let them have kids, then we can have less close-minded conservatives like Bush running the world.

I think it's wrong to ban people from doing things that don't affect anyone else. I think this is one of these cases - if the couples weren't allowed to get married, they would most likely just live together in the exact same way as they would do if they had been allowed to marry.

In actual fact, it's more likely for a child who comes from a straight family to have "certain psychological desequilibrium". Remember, gay people who decided to have children will want one, and will take care of them to their fullest, because it was their choice. However, straight couples don't always decide to have children, and thus sometimes don't bother to care for them. Gay couples can't have kids by accident.

I think being a bad parent has little to do with planning for a child or not.

/me being whom i am, you know my take.. its sick, always will be, and no amount of rationalizing it will alter that view.

my wife and i have vowed, that if they legalize it here we will divorce, cause we refuse to share marriage with them, in spite of the fact we both are non-religious, we take our marriage quite seriously.. and its a union/group or whatever you like to say, but its a position we will not share with a bunch of deviants.

being one of the few pitters whom feel so strongly negative about gays, it puts me in an awkward position, since most of you are of the mind, that any action taken that hurts no one else is a good thing, i cannot really believe that rational and educated people can think so.. self destructiveness, is still wrong.

basically its this, if the gays are allowed to marry, whats next, the incestuous couples? if a guarantee on no offspring, will it be ok for brothers/sisters, mothers and son's to marry.. and who's to say if they do that offspring are not their "GOD GIVIN RIGHT"???

look wrong is wrong, will always be wrong, it cannot be changed on a whim.. its gotta stop someplace and i say it stops at marriage.

bottom-line folks, i refuse to argue this point so don't you dare quote anything i just typed, cause i refuse to argue, but i promise you will NOT like to hear what i really think about gays.. up to this point in snarkpit history, i have kept my mouth pretty clean on the subject.. but my thinking still remains quite evil.. THINK BEFORE YOU POST!

I don't think anyone would like to taint their posts with a quote from that.

Alien_Sniper said:
I don't think anyone would like to taint their posts with a quote from that.

wipes brow

good, i would hate to think that i didn't have the right to post my viewpoint as well..

thanx dave.

in spite of the fact you may disagree, i still appreciate your comment

are you sure about that ?? Most complexes and psychoses are caused by an "absent" father, or an unresolved Oedipian conflict, etc... I don't have a very good knowledge of psychology, but i find it weird to have two fathers or two moms (i prefer two moms by the way)...

well i dunno, that's my opinion; although I consider myself a rather open minded person, i'm still an oriental.

? quote:
In actual fact, it's more likely for a child who comes from a straight family to have "certain psychological desequilibrium". Remember, gay people who decided to have children will want one, and will take care of them to their fullest, because it was their choice. However, straight couples don't always decide to have children, and thus sometimes don't bother to care for them. Gay couples can't have kids by accident.

I think being a bad parent has little to do with planning for a child or not.

I should have rephrased that. I'm not saying all people who don't plant to have children don't try to care for them, but it does happen. While gay couples will want to take care of their child, because they made the decision.

And Kain, I would say the child would sub-conciously assign a mother and father figure if it's important to the child to have them. Societal idelologies would probably cause them to do this.

And orph, someone's gonna rip that post apart sooner or later. Saying people shouldn't because you'll just start to hate-flame gays won't stop people. It would aid the discussion if someone argued with you. Just as long as you keep your composure and don't start to flaming gay people blindly. It's still possible to simply say "I really, really hate gays because: etc." in a civilised manner. if you have rational reasons, then why not discuss it? Your forum title even says "Ideas grow only when shared". Well, come on then. :smile:

Kage_Prototype said:
And orph, someone's gonna rip that post apart sooner or later. Saying people shouldn't because you'll just start to hate-flame gays won't stop people. It would aid the discussion if someone argued with you. Just as long as you keep your composure and don't start to flaming gay people blindly. It's still possibly to simply say "I really, really hate gays because: etc." in a civilised manner. :smile:

you are absolutely correct, i do indeed expect someone to disregard my request, and do anticipate it to happen relatively soon, but that will be on their heads not mine.

snarkpit is made up of many personages, all good in their own way, but a few of us have topics we are adamantly inflexible on.. i just want it very clear upfront exactly what my position is, mostly for the new members, since all of the oldtimers know my position on this and have come to terms with my poor choice in expression. they do NOT agree with me, but realize i am not likely to change soon, so why bother.

i am not a hate monger, i do not go out and beat up gays.. but i do strongly disagree with their existence, and would lose no sleep over their ... well thats another topic, we are talking marriage.. i disagree, they do not need it to sanctify their position.. i would be just as committed to my wife, with or without the ceremony of marriage. gays just want, what is denied them, its a point of pride, not marriage itself.. they want to be DIFFERENT, but treated as if they were NOT.

if they were truly proud of their differences, they would not be so hell bent on sameness, that IMO is the biggest crime of all.

i would be just as committed to my wife, with or without the ceremony of marriage. gays just want, what is denied them, its a point of pride, not marriage itself.. they want to be DIFFERENT, but treated as if they were NOT.

if they were truly proud of their differences, they would not be so hell bent on sameness, that IMO is the biggest crime of all.

I would have throught they'd want to marry for the same reasons straight couples get married. While I accept that you may not want to change your views that gay marriage is wrong, this particular reason confuzles me. Maybe they get married for the same reason you did? I doubt all of them simply want to have it because they can't at the moment.

see? discussion! yay! :razz:

Kage_Prototype said:
I would say the child would sub-conciously assign a mother and father figure if it's important to the child to have them. Societal idelologies would probably cause them to do this.

Of course it's important! And it's not a social thing, it's a basic biological distinction! Male and female! It's like black or white! I mean the poor guy would be totally confused without that essential value.

I am totally with gays; just, don't adopt an unconsenting infant!!

Kage_Prototype said:

i would be just as committed to my wife, with or without the ceremony of marriage. gays just want, what is denied them, its a point of pride, not marriage itself.. they want to be DIFFERENT, but treated as if they were NOT.

if they were truly proud of their differences, they would not be so hell bent on sameness, that IMO is the biggest crime of all.

I would have throught they'd want to marry for the same reasons straight couples get married. While I accept that you may not want to change your views that gar marriage is wrong, this particular reason confuzles me. Maybe they get married for the same reason you did? I doubt all of them simply want to have it because they can't at the moment.

see? discussion! yay! :razz:

scratches buttocks,resists urge to sniff finger

my position reflects rosy O'Donnell's <<is that spelt correctly?

she and her partner got married because bush said they could NOT, not because they should, or would otherwise.

i could have misheard this on the news, but i doubt it.

this may not be reflective of all the gay community, but it sure appears that way.

its human nature to long for what is denied you, and this will forever be denied the gay community, even if someone passes a law "allowing" gays to marry, they will still only be gays within an unaccepting world.

anywho's you, or anyone doesn't have to concur with me, my goal is never to alter ones views, but to make my position as clear as you can conceive.. if it was proven that snarkpit was indeed a community comprised of 99% gays and 1% straight, i would still be here, helping people to map.. my dim views do not alter my goals of assisting anyone who asks for help.

i, unlike many, can separate my feelings, from my objectives.

anywho's you, or anyone doesn't have to concur with me, my goal is never to alter ones views, but to make my position as clear as you can conceive.. if it was proven that snarkpit was indeed a community comprised of 99% gays and 1% straight, i would still be here, helping people to map.. my dim views do not alter my goals of assisting anyone who asks for help.

i, unlike many, can separate my feelings, from my objectives.

Hopefully this sort of mentality will keep up during the rest of the topic.

Back to the discussion: here's a great little article defending gay marriage. It might be a bit slow loading, but it's something I think everyone wishing to partake in this topic should read.

i think i have occupied center stage long enuff this morning, its someone elses turn to do so..

thanx guys, this could have went badly.

/me shuffles back to bed, this last trip took a terrible toll on my butt, being sick the whole time.

Orph, would you be opppsed to it if one of the couple had to have a sex change before they could get married?

scary_jeff said:
Orph, would you be opposed to it if one of the couple had to have a sex change before they could get married?

if the partner knew in advance of the sex change, then no, i would however be opposed to any hidden information like that.

plus it is my understanding that its not likely for gays to find their partner more attractive having the accepted genitalia added surgically.

most lesbians find the penis gross, as the males find the vagina.

but to answer your question, the answer would be no, if my criteria were met. it would be wrong to lie to your partner, even a gay one about such.

Don't adopt an unconsenting child? Are you insane?

Life itself is not a consentual issue. Does this mean it is wrong to have children? None of us, as far as we know, were given a choice of wether we'd like to be alive; and such as it is, instead of touting our rights to 'choose' at every possible turn, there are some things that you just go along with.

if given a choice, a child growing up parent-less, and in a foster-home, i would chose gays rights to adopt, but only as a very last resort, then the strictest set of circumstances available to monitor the new family for deviant traits being taught or passed on, if the family remains "normal" then fine and dandy, but if the gayisms are transfered in any way to the helpless and influential children, it would be considered child abuse and charges filed.

children should not have to grow up parent-less, if its avoidable, and many truly need good homes, and if a gay can manage for the children's sake to give the impression of normalcy, then the child would surely benefit with it..

i am not above adoption to any source, but i would consider teaching the young the "greatness" of being gay to be a crime against good parenting.

i would not wish any child to not know the benefit of adults, especially parenting ones... foster homes are for the best sometimes, but they should only be a stepping stone to a real home, whatever that entails.

I can't believe what I'm hearing here...

Something I don't think you realize is that it's not just a physical thing. I (yeah, I said "I") simply cannot form an emotional bond with a woman, but I can with a man. I don't expect you to be able to understand that, because frankly, I don't think you can. In my experience, some people are just too close-minded to step outside of their little boxes for just one minute and take a look at the world through someone elses eyes.

I would so love to just take myself out from this and just be able to spectate and commentate on what those "crazy gays" are doing, what with trying to gain rights as people (God forbid), but as chance has it, I can't. I'm stuck in the middle of a world with a handful of people out there who feel that my very existance is a mistake, something abhorrent that should be removed from the earth- I live in a world where it is possilbe that one day I might just be strung up behind a truck, drug around a little bit, then strung up on a fence to die. Wonderful.

And please, don't even try to equate homosexuality to anything other than homosexuality. Legalizing marriages (marriages for christ sake. A union of two people. Oh the horror.) for gay couples is NOT going to make it socially acceptable for pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality or whatever the hell else you want to say. The difference is that in a true homosexual relationship, the two people ARE CONSENTING ADULTS. Equating them is almost akin to saying that "Hey, them there straight people are gettin' married, so it must be OK for me to have sex with a six year old girl, simply because a man can marry a woman."

And I just want to say- at no point in my life did I make the decision to "be gay." I didn't choose to be "struck with the gay," any more than I chose to be born with brown eyes. Why the hell would someone choose something like that? It doesn't make any sense to me.

The driving force for the gay marriage isn't just so that the gay community as a whole can hold it over people while saying "Look! We won! We're better than you!" because that's not what it is about at all. We want to be recognized not as deviants, freaks, immoral, but just as human beings. Is that really so much to ask?

I don't really care if there are still some people out there who don't accept my "lifestyle" (which, by the way, isn't a stereotypical "gay" lifestyle- when I came out to some of my friends, they were shocked, just because they thought I was so straight), because there have always been and will always be people out there who hate a group, if for no reason other than the simple fact that they belong to that group. Unfortunately, that's part of human nature too.

thats the longest speech you have made in a long time monkee, the fact that i disagree with almost all of it not withstanding.

consider this, deviant sex with children was socially acceptable not so very long ago, people tauting its beneficial nature to the child if allowed, and i am sure they believed it, pointing out that the child said they enjoyed it as well.. then one day someone makes a law forbidding it, which stands to this day.. does one not believe that even back then many cried about their rights being violated?

gays rationalize it away as nonsequitur because pedophilia has been a law since before their birth, but the fact remains, wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

gayisms aside, the question was should gays be allowed to marry, my answer remains no, not for religious reasons, but for the gays selfish reasons for wanting it.

disagreeing is perfectly acceptable, but doing so doesn't not in any way make it right or correct.

Yes but Orph you can't say "wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it".

take two steps back and see this statement again. opinion, not fact :smile:

and as for my attitude toward homosexuality, i dont have a problem with gay men/women, as long as they dont ram it down my throat.. (literally or otherwise). I've seen plenty of "gay folk" when I was working in bars, and 99% of them were nice people, apart from the few who tried to chat you up and send you "compliments" across the bar...

but i guess you get that with the straight community, overflirtatious people. i just think that certain gay people should accept that a lot of society dont and wont like them, and keep their mouth shut in terms of that..

<TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=2 width="95%" align=center bgColor=black>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold">
[b][i][color=white]my replies are inserted in ORANGE[/i][/b][/color]

? posted by Orpheus

</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>scratches buttocks,resists urge to sniff finger

my position reflects rosy O'Donnell's she and her partner got married because bush said they could NOT, not because they should, or would otherwise. this may not be reflective of all the gay community, but it sure appears that way.

I agree, it was dumb. But how many heterosexual couples run off and get married despite their parents' protests? How many idiots get married in Las Vegas by Elvis only to be divorced a day or week later? Heterosexuals have done a fine job all by themselves of trashing the 'institution' (what a stupid expression) of marriage.

Also, these are people who are willing to fight massive discrimination to be married. Many of these couples have been together for years, if not decades, but have been denied this acknowledgement of their union. A gay couple that's been together for 20 years can't get married, but two stupid kids out of high school can? Give me a break.

its human nature to long for what is denied you, and this will forever be denied the gay community, even if someone passes a law "allowing" gays to marry, they will still only be gays within an unaccepting world.

Yeah, people used to say that about blacks having equal rights, or women being able to vote. Your grandkids will be as embarrassed by you as I am by my great-aunt, who still refers to blacks as "colored" :rolleyes:

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The real ignorance I see is that people can't get past the SEXUAL part of gay relationships. They seem to think gay relationships are based only on 'unnatural' sexual desires. The truth is, many of these people are in love, and have been together for years. I used to hang out and study with this lesbian couple when I was in Buffalo, and they were so cute together. You could tell they really cared about each other, it was as genuine as any heterosexual relationship I've ever seen. It's bulls**t that they shouldn't be socially and legally recognized as a couple.

Another thing about the sexual stuff... much of it is stuff that heterosexual couples do too. There are lots of things couples do together that I find kind of icky, doesn't mean I'm going to judge them for it. Because it's none of my business.

As for homosexuality being somehow dangerous to our culture, maybe people should listen to the scientists and not the bible-thumpers:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
[color=#759cdd]Scientists counter Bush view / Families varied, say anthropologists

?The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution,? said the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association.

Bush has cast the union between male and female as the only proper form of marriage, or what he called in his State of the Union address ?one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.?

American anthropologists say he?s wrong.

?Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies,? the association?s statement said, adding that the executive board ?strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.?

[/quote][/color]

Gwil said:
Yes but Orph you can't say "wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it".

take two steps back and see this statement again. opinion, not fact :smile:

and everything i have said up to now "IS" my opinion and not subject to change or correction from the snarkpit at large bud :smile:

in spite of what you all may think of me, my views and feelings of monkee are unaffected, i still like him just as much as before, take that as good, or bad, i dont really care.. monkee has repeatedly shown me his maturity and i see no reason to alter my opinion of him.

some would say, "oh how gracious of you orph :rolleyes: " but, i am strong in my convictions, but never unfairly so.

monkee is my friend as long as he permits me to be so.

I'm not making a point of Monqui, i'm just saying if you look back and read what you type you might see how crazy it actually looks... sorry to make comparisons with some of the greatest tyrants on earth but..

quitting marriage because gays are allowed to do so also ~ purity laws/beliefs? HELLO 1933? Tell hitler we have some more rubbish to add to mein kampf!

"gays rationalize it away as nonsequitur because pedophilia has been a law since before their birth, but the fact remains, wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it."

"gays" have a birth? is gay a race? an indoctrination? what? you see, generlisations and misinformed ignorance is the worse way to form an opinion, its just the same as Nazis, white power groups et al.

i know youll argue back, but I hope one day you can see your judgement is clouded, whether you come back to "agree" or not is irrelevant, but most of your thoughts about the homosexual community now seems to be based on hearsay and inventions of your head :/

as for gay marriage, let them do it for all I care, theyll probably end up like most heterosexuals anyway, AND GET DIVORCED!.

perhaps its time the englightened heteros of the world took a look at their society and its morals toward marriage and prejudice toward homosexuality.. but i dont see that happened anytime soon!

i dont agree with same sex couples being able to raise children from an early age though, simply because the child will probably be bullied to suicide :/

it's easy to be prejudiced against people when you don't actually know any of them. once you do, and realize they are human just like you, it all starts to fall apart.

Gwil said:
I'm not making a point of Monqui, i'm just saying if you look back and read what you type you might see how crazy it actually looks... sorry to make comparisons with some of the greatest tyrants on earth but..

quitting marriage because gays are allowed to do so also ~ purity laws/beliefs? HELLO 1933? Tell hitler we have some more rubbish to add to mein kampf!

"gays rationalize it away as nonsequitur because pedophilia has been a law since before their birth, but the fact remains, wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it."

"gays" have a birth? is gay a race? an indoctrination? what? you see, generlisations and misinformed ignorance is the worse way to form an opinion, its just the same as Nazis, white power groups et al.

i know youll argue back, but I hope one day you can see your judgement is clouded, whether you come back to "agree" or not is irrelevant, but most of your thoughts about the homosexual community now seems to be based on hearsay and inventions of your head :/

no arguement from me cause i didn't grasp a single thing you just said, sorry gwil it made no sense at all.

i think you might have fallen victim to the text thing again, cause how you quoted me, and what i said, didn't sound like what i meant.

exactly orph, its rubbish :smile: ok it wasnt true quoting, more paraphrasing but im boiling down how your sentences come across and the whole ridiculousness of it all!

Crono: homosexuality/the debate of issues relating to is always counterproductive :razz:

but agreed, yes to civil services for homosexual couples!

Gwil said:
i dont agree with same sex couples being able to raise children from an early age though, simply because the child will probably be bullied to suicide :/

see, this is where i disagree, people have had to deal with this with interracial offspring for ages, and the suicide rate doesn't increase with such conditions.

it isn't the gays raising children thats an issue with most straight people, its the "passing on" of the life style thats so frowned upon.

the issue as i see it, is not so much of straight people in their box as monkee said, but the gays attempting to batter theirs down.. they created their box we did not put them inside it.

That too Orph, but you think about it - as soon as the rest of the kids at school/in the neighbourhood find out little Jimmy has 2 Dads, or 2 Mums and that they are "fagots, queers" etc, his life will be a living hell...

plus you miss out on all the natural motherly bonds and balanced parenting as well like you say

Yes, because obviously single parent families always work and have a higher success rate than 'normal' mum/dad families! :rolleyes:

throughout history. children learn from their parents. you no doubt tell your kids things others do not agree with. A straight couple may tell their children being gay is wrong & no bloody doubt, thousands do.

Would the hitler youth have existed if theyd not grown up as little hitlers, being taught by their parents that thats how they have to be?

i need to run for a while, but i wanted to add, that in spite of the fact that some of my opinions seem to directly contradict themselves, they in fact do not..

my priority system separates all of them..

i make sacrifices for my children, and grand children, they are my #1 priority. i extend that to other children as well, they come before many of my decisions..

its why i hate gays, but see nothing wrong with them adopting children if they behave themselves.. children must have a home, and thats all important IMO

Leperous said:
Yes, because obviously single parent families always work and have a higher success rate than 'normal' mum/dad families! :rolleyes:

Thats not the point, i'm just saying it's not fair to put children into an environment which is more than likely going to be counterproductive for them when they start interacting with society.

It's got nothing to do with the sexuality of the parent or the ability of the parent, more so to do with the attitudes of society/education/"straight" parents toward homosexuality.

I say let em do what they want. I could care less. In fact, let's throw all of the homo's & lesbo's a huge party. We could get some of that Jonestown coolade to serve! Ya that's the ticket.

Actually what gripes me is to hear gays whine about gay rights. There is no such thing. There are human rights...period!
Sorry, no "special" considerations for ANYONE. Gays should all be treated the same, although I don't think we have enough whips at the time of this writing.

Seriously, I'm not serious, but the coolade still sounds like a good idea.

Orph's kids are going to get their asses kicked for being stupid little homophobes

see, this is where i disagree, people have had to deal with this with interracial offspring for ages, and the suicide rate doesn't increase with such conditions.

Interracial couples are now accepted and not seen as creating a breed of mongrels or whatever excuse people had for not liking them in the past. Homosexuals are still actively persecuted much more widely - racism still exists, of course, but since the civil rights movement people have found other groupings within society to try and alienate and destroy.

it isn't the gays raising children thats an issue with most straight people, its the "passing on" of the life style thats so frowned upon.

Wait, since when is homosexuality 'passed on' or 'contagious' or anything of the sort? Oh, wait, it isn't. Nevermind.

the issue as i see it, is not so much of straight people in their box as monkee said, but the gays attempting to batter theirs down.. they created their box we did not put them inside it

And those bastard freed slaves in the 1860s didn't just go get jobs and go to school and quickly rise to the top of society. Nope, they just slunk around at the bottom because that's where they wanted to be.

Bulls**t. That's an exagerrated example, but when society sees someone different from the accepted 'norm,' society blocks them out. It has happened for millennia - race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation (note the use of the word 'orientation' instead of 'preference'), economic class, political party, whatever the hell you can think of - and will continue to happen into the future. Society grows when it rights itself and moves to eliminate these injustices - emancipation, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement. It's not a perfect process, and there will always be feelings of discomfort or hate for those someone is not familiar with or afraid of, but it's how we make progress. The only harm being done to society is not from those the mainstream society fears, but from those who through their efforts, intentional or not, widen the gap between fellow human beings.