Originally posted by Gooney I dont see why anyone would care. If one of my children turns out to be gay it certainly wont affect how much I love them. And I as thier father wish nothing more than they have a happy and fullfilled life, if as a homosexual they decide that marriage would contribute to that, well. I guess Id have to dust of my tux and throw in helping getting things organized. It is also my view that if this couple that dedicated themselves to eachother in front of thier common community (is that not marriage?) decided to rear a child, then I would be for that too. A child with two loving parents cant be worse off than a child with one loving parent or worse yet no loving parents. Homosexaulity isnt an illness, nor is it a moral choice, it is a lifestyle choice. If someone decides to tie morality into it, what then is that morality derived from. There is only one valid argument against homosexaulity and that is the simple, black and white biological imperative argument. And that argument simply doesnt hold water in a time, place, and societies which have rapidly growing, ill kempt populations. There is no logical basis for a moral opposition. There are far too many religions all claiming to be right for me to give too much weight to any of thier arguments. BTW, Im married with 2 kids. -Gooney
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
you can be gay dude...or whatever else but why the hell gays need marriage..if they cant have children? or you can have it too..but without taxes priveleges ( dunno how its called in english)
What is marriage if not a declaration to your society and social circle that you have pledged yourself and your future to your partner?
Marriage in modern times has many legal ramifications, particularily in the USA where state and federal income taxes are based on family incomes. Each person has the right to a certain amount of exemptions, married couples (families) recieve an extra exemption by virtue of thier integrated economies.
Now this is just one reason that homosexual couples should have the right to marry, but there are many other than the communal declaration and tax reasons. There is the insurance reasons, questions of inheritence, etc.
Right now, most homosexual couples are by default discriminated against by the very societies and governments that thier tax dollars pay for. That is taxation without representation and the number one reason that the American colonies broke with King Georger III's England. Ok thats melodramatic but the principle is the same.
Most opposition to homosexual marriage comes from religious doctrinal driven objections. These I would argue are for the most part (excluding any surviving theocracies and Washington DC) are irrelivant.
The only reason that this is an issue at all politically speaking is that the current American, anti-terror league want you to keep your EYE OFF THE BALL.
Homosexuals are human beings, Human beings have certain unalienable rights, thats all there is to it.
My opinion on the matter is that if you are against gay marriage, then you shouldnt get gay married. You shouldnt go "You cant get married to a member of the same sex because I dont want you to." Marriage is a social construct; thats all it is. Many societies didnt have marriage rituals and werent staying with one mate their whole lives. Its not a big deal; the only time it is brought up is to get voters to polls.
As for saying that there is no substitute for a man and a woman parent, the truth is that there is no substitute for two parents. A child with a single parent or no parents is definitely worse off than a child with two gay parents. In fact, in many cultures before the age of European imperialism raised their children as a community; that way each child had maybe fifty parents. And this worked for them. So given the choice between a child going parentless and a child growing up with gay parents, you'd rather them be parentless?
The funny thing about allowing gay marriage is that it would bring more people into the middle class moral sphere. Marriage promotes sex with a single partner, and in addition to all the health benefits of that, it would help curb the promiscious nature associated with homosexuals.
And as for the only benefit being tax benefits, that is false. If a gay couple is together for twenty years and one of them is in the hospital, the other cant visit because they arent kin. If everything they own (house, car, etc) is in one of their's names they dont get the benefits of divorce (one person loses everything, the other gets everything... not right) and if one person dies without a will the other gets nothing.
I'm not saying its right. I am heterosexual and therefore will not get married to a man in my lifetime. Therefore it isnt right for me. For someone else, it is right and I think it would be wrong of me to deny them what they want since it doesnt affect me at all.
Besides, they should have to suffer through the pain of marriage like the rest of us.
Originally posted by baff There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
Thats kinda the point Baff, its not a choice. Its not something you can "pray away". And the rest about it is plain bull, there are easily as many and more deviant and sexually dangerous hetrosexuals in the world.
Point is though, that as a parent you dont get to choose if your child is hetro or homo, what is is what is. Its how you deal with it that is important and shows your character.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Gooney I dont see why anyone would care. If one of my children turns out to be gay it certainly wont affect how much I love them. And I as thier father wish nothing more than they have a happy and fullfilled life, if as a homosexual they decide that marriage would contribute to that, well. I guess Id have to dust of my tux and throw in helping getting things organized. It is also my view that if this couple that dedicated themselves to eachother in front of thier common community (is that not marriage?) decided to rear a child, then I would be for that too. A child with two loving parents cant be worse off than a child with one loving parent or worse yet no loving parents. Homosexaulity isnt an illness, nor is it a moral choice, it is a lifestyle choice. If someone decides to tie morality into it, what then is that morality derived from. There is only one valid argument against homosexaulity and that is the simple, black and white biological imperative argument. And that argument simply doesnt hold water in a time, place, and societies which have rapidly growing, ill kempt populations. There is no logical basis for a moral opposition. There are far too many religions all claiming to be right for me to give too much weight to any of thier arguments. BTW, Im married with 2 kids. -Gooney
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
For your first point; that says more about society in general than anything. You should be asking why society discriminates against people in the first place and seek to change that. You wouldnt say "I dont want to have ain interracial child because they will be discriminated against," would you? Especially if the person you loved was of a different color.
Furthermore, there are ways for a gay couple to spread their seed. True, it wont contain genetic material from two partners (though combining two females is possible and has been done with lots of animals besides humans... maybe they have done humans, I havent read anything on it in awhile though so I cant be sure), but it can contain genetic material from your family. The way this is done is surrogate mothers in the case of males (a woman carries the baby, gives birth to it, and thats the extent of her involvement), or sperm donations in the case of females.
Want to know a fun fact? World wide there is a greater number of heterosexuals suffering from AIDS. It isnt a gay disease like religious conservatives from the 80s want you to think. Teach your kids safe sex and they will not get AIDS. Teach your kids to only have sex with one partner at a time and they won't get AIDS.
As for your statement on security, gay marriage would resolve that issue. If monogamy is supported, gays will be discouraged from being promiscuous. They will be more likely to have a single partner just like heterosexuals. Also, there is a large portion of the heterosexual community that engages in that same behavior you have mentioned. Ever been to college? Or even high school? The last I checked the kids were banging together like cymbals in an overworked marching band.
I lived with loads of gays and loads of straights.
I never used to drive any straight men or women down to the local public lavatory at 11 pm every night. I did for every gay I lived with.
Those same public toilets where the only two local murders have occoured in my life time.
.
I've worked in gay clubs and I've worked in straight clubs.
I've never seen men or women dragged off the dancefloor into the toilets and men taking it turns to bum them. A nightly occourance in some of the clubs I worked.
.
I've worked in an aids clinic.
There were no hetrosexual men in attendance. Junkies were presumably to stoned to get off the sofa.
.
Gay is a choice. I'm not religious and "praying" isn't something I associate with hetrosexuality. The clergy was the previous refuge for gay men. (Still is). They only society they could be accepted in.
There is no "gay gene". It's a question of personal preference. You aren't born gay. You choose to be gay or maybe it is forced upon you. When some geneticist discovers the "gay gene", I'll eat my words.
Seems to me, you lot talk about gays but you don't actually know many,
I think it's probably smarter if I adapt my children to the world than adapt the world to my children don't you?
Gays are discriminted against. Get over it.
As it happens I'm planning on interacial children. There is an issue of racism for both me and any mixed race child in Japan. Which is why I intend to raise them here in England where it is not. It's not something I can protect them against completely, but I am still in the business of increasing their odds as much as I can.
.
Gay marriage doesn't bother me in the slightest. Will it stop gay men shagging total strangers, I doubt it, they seem to enjoy it.
.
I'm fully aware hetrosexuals get aids. The no.1 cause is sharing needles, the no.2 bottom sex. I shall obviously teach my kids to do neither.
It's not politically correct to call Aids the gay disease anymore? Oh dear. Sorry to offend your sensibilities.
.
Kids in college are not randomly propositioning men in public toilets. They are not shagging nameless strangers for 2 hours a night every night. And there isn't that same obvious danger that if guy A asks girl B for a shag at school, they will be so offended/repulsed they will physically murder him on the spot.
Originally posted by baff @ Albinofreak, I think it's probably smarter if I adapt my children to the world than adapt the world to my children don't you? Gays are discriminted against. Get over it.
Are you gonna break their legs and stretch them because tall people have a better deal in society? Because you have a better chance of accomplishing that than of 'choosing' a sexuality for them.
Originally posted by xpowderx The Constitution of the United States of America We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The question would be: Does gay marriage promote the general welfare of this country. Does it insure domestic tranquility? I guess the answer would be from different point of views. One could argue scientifically that gay marriage does neither to the US constitution. Example: If you have 10 hetero couples and 10 gay couples and two islands(controlled enviroment) and placed each set of couples on one of the two isles seperately and told both to be posterous,promote the general welfare and provide domestic tranquility for multiple generations(To keep the country growing) . Which would most likely succeed?
First off, we don't live on an island with homogenous populations. We live in a world with all kinds of different people. But let's just take your experiment a little further. What if you took a group of biologically sterile people and put them on one island and group of fertile humans on another. Extend that out as your case study. The point is God made all different kinds of people for a lot of different reasons. Why don't you enjoy the contributions that gay people can make to society instead of trying to act like they're not worthy of your societal acceptance.
So why don't you jump on the biologically sterile people the same way you jump on gays? God made them sterile. Aren't they an abomination for that reason? Why would God put sterile people on the Earth? Hmmmmm... ????
Originally posted by Jackcolt To quote Eddie Murphy:
- I make fun of gay people because... well they are gay
It shouldn't be illegal, but they shouldn't be able to adopt children simply because there is no substitute for both mother and a father.
Yeah, but we can't all be in an ideal family. And sometimes there just isn't a mother and father. So do you think an orphanage is a better solution for those kids? I would think a stable home life would be better.
And to quote Eddie Murphy as a source of wisdom???? C'mon man.
It's not cool to make fun of people. Didn't your mother and father teach you that? I would think that such a stable family life would have given you that lesson.
Originally posted by KzinKiller Are you gonna break their legs and stretch them because tall people have a better deal in society? Because you have a better chance of accomplishing that than of 'choosing' a sexuality for them.
If I beleived that, I might find myself more attracted to a taller woman. A lot of people do.
Breaking peoples legs seems a stupid way of doing things.
.
You misundersatnd me, I'm not attempting to choose their sexuality, anymore than I am attempting to choose their profession, who they fall in love with, what subjects they study at school.
What I am attempting to do is to provide a positive role model for the choices I believe to be most likely to produce happy and successful people. To increase the odds of them living happy, safe, pleasant and fulfilled lives free from danger, prejudice and discrimination.
While I'm sure it is possible to do all these things and be gay, it is more possible to do them and be straight. As long as this is my belief, and it is, I shall always endeavour to pass on the benefits of my experience to my children. It would be immoral not to.
Originally posted by Gooney I dont see why anyone would care. If one of my children turns out to be gay it certainly wont affect how much I love them. And I as thier father wish nothing more than they have a happy and fullfilled life, if as a homosexual they decide that marriage would contribute to that, well. I guess Id have to dust of my tux and throw in helping getting things organized. It is also my view that if this couple that dedicated themselves to eachother in front of thier common community (is that not marriage?) decided to rear a child, then I would be for that too. A child with two loving parents cant be worse off than a child with one loving parent or worse yet no loving parents. Homosexaulity isnt an illness, nor is it a moral choice, it is a lifestyle choice. If someone decides to tie morality into it, what then is that morality derived from. There is only one valid argument against homosexaulity and that is the simple, black and white biological imperative argument. And that argument simply doesnt hold water in a time, place, and societies which have rapidly growing, ill kempt populations. There is no logical basis for a moral opposition. There are far too many religions all claiming to be right for me to give too much weight to any of thier arguments. BTW, Im married with 2 kids. -Gooney
I would love my kid too if he were gay. I would want him to find a partner and be happy in life.
I disagree with you on one thing though. I don't think it's a choice at all. Why would anyone choose to be that way?
Originally posted by nero666 gay marriages are stupid look if every male will be gay? and homosexuality is promoted in every country homophoby now is something like antisemitism...tabu word and marriage is only nice for taxes next will be married with ur own dog..or gold fish
You can't marry a dog or goldfish because they are not able to give consent to marriage.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Gooney I dont see why anyone would care. If one of my children turns out to be gay it certainly wont affect how much I love them. And I as thier father wish nothing more than they have a happy and fullfilled life, if as a homosexual they decide that marriage would contribute to that, well. I guess Id have to dust of my tux and throw in helping getting things organized. It is also my view that if this couple that dedicated themselves to eachother in front of thier common community (is that not marriage?) decided to rear a child, then I would be for that too. A child with two loving parents cant be worse off than a child with one loving parent or worse yet no loving parents. Homosexaulity isnt an illness, nor is it a moral choice, it is a lifestyle choice. If someone decides to tie morality into it, what then is that morality derived from. There is only one valid argument against homosexaulity and that is the simple, black and white biological imperative argument. And that argument simply doesnt hold water in a time, place, and societies which have rapidly growing, ill kempt populations. There is no logical basis for a moral opposition. There are far too many religions all claiming to be right for me to give too much weight to any of thier arguments. BTW, Im married with 2 kids. -Gooney
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
You're sad. To say you wouldn't support your children. And then to say you would be embarassed of them as well.
Being "supportive" does not mean I get to skip on the moral guidance part.
Educating your children and shaping their upbringings is the duty of a parent. To equip them in the best way you know how to deal with the future.
I will not teach my children that being gay is every bit as alright as being straight. It isn't. It might be someday in the future in or in some fantasy society, but it isn't in this one. They will be discriminated against and it would be wrong for me to teach them to expect anything else.
Originally posted by baff Your children have never embarassed you? You must be an absentee father. . Being supportive does not mean I get to skip on the moral guidance part. I consider that to be unsupportive. Educating your children and shaping their upbringings is the duty of a parent. To equip them in the best way you know how to deal with the future.
There is no moral guidance, because I wouldn't tell my gay child there is something wrong with him. Because there isn't. And equipping them with the best way to deal with their future means letting them know that there are some fucked up people out there with attitudes like yours and letting them know that there are others that show love and understanding.
I wouldn't accept a religion that teaches people there is something wrong with them because of things they have no control over. If that's your religion then it's not right for me and my child. Take that crap somewhere else. We don't need your attempts at placing guilt on us.
I don't mind if you want to teach your gay child that being gay is cool, and that he will be discriminated against and that the people who do are nasty people. If I had a gay child, I would most likely teach him the same.
Personally I would prefer my child to chose a different path. I would like to teach my child that gays will be discriminated against and let him choose for himself. However, like all the choices I allow him to make, it will hopefully be tempered by my own judgement as mine has been by my own fathers before me.
I shall not just throw him out in the world and expect him to make very difficult decisions for himself out of "freedom" to be what ever he wants. I want that influence to come from me, and Mr Gay the new vicar, or Mr Gay his school teacher, Mr Gay my party animal friends or any other role model. That role is mine to fill.
I don't see where the love and understanding is in encouraging a child to chose a path that will bring him into direct conflict with normal society. Sinces the chances are that would bring very predictable misery, why wouldn't you encourage him to avoid it?
.
Personally I don't care if you and your son worship a gay or straight religion. Satanism, Christianity, Islam or Jedi. I would be very wary of any vicar wanting to discuss homosexuality if i was you. And if it was my son, he'd be changing sunday school the moment it happened.
Is homosexuality a sin? against who?? god? prove it exists, then we'll decide if its a sin...until then, no.
Is gay marriage wrong? is it wrong in the sense that (at this time) marriage is defined in most places between two members of the opposite sex? then yes, because the current definition does not allow for gay marriage. But this is a pretty ridiculous position to take considering all it would take would be a redefinition of marriage. It's not like the day that happens (and it will) these bigots will decide gay marriage is fine and dandy.
IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to not have state sanctioned marriage. Government should only come into play if one person tries to renege on the contract.
Originally posted by baff I don't mind if you want to teach your gay child that being gay is cool, and that he will be discriminated against and that the people who do are nasty people. If I had a gay child, I would most likely teach him the same. Personally I would prefer my child to chose a different path. I would like to teach child that gays will be discriminated against and let him choose for himself. However, like all the choices I allow him to make, it will hopefully be tempered by my own judgement as mine have been by my fathers before me. I shall not just throw him out in the world and expect him to make very difficult decisions for himself out of "freedom" to be what ever he wants. I don't see where the love and understanding is in encouraging a child to chose a path that will bring him into direct conflict with normal society. Sinces the chances are that would bring very predictable misery, why wouldn't you encourage him to avoid it? . Personally I don't care if you and your son worship a gay or straight religion. Satanism, Christianity, Islam or Jedi. I would be very wary of any vicar wanting to discuss homosexuality if i was you. And if it was my son, he'd be changing sunday school the moment it happened.
Where we split is on the whole choice issue. You believe it's a choice, I don't.
I believe it is more enviroment and circumstance than active "choice".
If you were to bring him up in a permissive accepting kind of a "gays alright lets go to another gay wedding this week son", kind of an enviroment. I think the chances of him having a gay encounter is higher.
The more gay encounters you have, the more likely you are to start enjoying them.
.
I used to hate the taste of beer the first few times....
.
While I don't object to children being brought up in that enviroment, mine won't be. Neither will they be brought up surrounded by drugs or any type of crime, etc etc etc. Role models are important.
Originally posted by freethinker Is homosexuality a sin? against who?? god? prove it exists, then we'll decide if its a sin...until then, no.
Is gay marriage wrong? is it wrong in the sense that (at this time) marriage is defined in most places between two members of the opposite sex? then yes, because the current definition does not allow for gay marriage. But this is a pretty ridiculous position to take considering all it would take would be a redefinition of marriage. It's not like the day that happens (and it will) these bigots will decide gay marriage is fine and dandy.
IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to not have state sanctioned marriage. Government should only come into play if one person tries to renege on the contract.
The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.
Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual.
Originally posted by baff I believe it is more enviroment and circumstance than active "choice". If you were to bring him up in a permissive accepting kind of a "gays alright lets go to another gay wedding this week son", kind of an enviroment. I think the chances of him having a gay encounter is higher. The more gay encounters you have, the more likely you are to start enjoying them. . I used to hate the taste of beer the first few times....
There is a gene in your body that makes you want to stick you pole up another mans bum?
Presumably this same genetic difference can be seen all across the animal kingdom. And since it is genetic, there are families of gays. Your dad's gay, his dad was gay, chances are you will be gay too. Like how baldness and cancer runs in my family, or my mates family all have black skin, or a 1/4 of my peacocks are white.
Is that it?
I can't think of any gays from a long line of gays from my own personal social circle. Presumably if gay was controlled by gene, Darwinism dictates they would have died out millenia ago.
I believe being gay isn't always a choice. I think homosexuality is all psychological. It can't be biological, like you're going to die unless you kiss another man. That's one part where I agree with Reavo.
However, engaging in homosexual sex is a choice. That's where choice comes in. That's where I (and coincidentally, the faith I belong to) say it's a sin.
The issue I have is that the whole 'gay culture' thing interferes with my way of life. I don't want the traditions of marriage changed. I don't want my kids to be told it's normal to be gay. I don't want my kid thinking he has to be a metrosexual because being otherwise means he's a gay-basher. People always talk about gay rights and everything, but they are perfectly happy to ignore the rights of heteros to preserve their way of life. I don't mind gay people living together, I wish them all the best happiness. But I wish you could do it without interfering with me and mine. Wasn't the whole 'civil union' thing good enough?
I don't know where I stand on gay couples raising kids. I mean, there's plenty of kids that need saving, and yes bringing kids into a loving family and happy home will do wonders for them. But I know that a large part of our social dynamic has to do with emulating our parents. Will this cause the child's personality to be skewed? Will it do any harm to the child's growth? I don't know the answers to those questions, I wish I did. What happens when my kid comes home from school in the 1st grade and asks why Bobby has two daddy's? How do I teach my kid that it's not normal to be gay without saying the wrong thing? Having the child of a gay couple in class with my own child will directly alter the way that my child is brought up, and interferes with the way I raise my kids. I mean I know I can't have control over everything, but that's one more thing to worry about.
Help me out here atleast. How am I supposed to deal with these things? Do gay people just figure that since they've been discriminated against, it's okay to interfere with other peoples traditions and such? That can't be true. So why the need to force your culture on mine?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by baff You think being gay is genetic.... There is a gene in your body that makes you want to stick you pole up another mans bum? Presumably this same genetic difference can be seen all across the animal kingdom. And since it is genetic, there are families of gays. Your dad's gay, his dad was gay, chances are you will be gay too. Like how baldness and cancer runs in my family, or my mates family all have black skin, or a 1/4 of my peacocks are white. Is that it? I can't think of any gays from a long line of gays from my own personal social circle. Presumably if gay was controlled by gene, Darwinism dictates they would have died out millenia ago. . You are not "born gay". Get real.
Why can't it be a combination of both nature and nurture?
I like your examples of genetic traits, but it might be possible that because homosexuality is more of a way of acting than of appearance, you might not have known there were “gay families”. Due to the way society looks at and treats homosexuals these “gay families” might have made the choice not to act on their predispositions.
I think it is a combination of both factors. Each has an important role, but to exclude one is not looking at the whole picture.
I also think that being gay is a choice, but only in the fact that you have a choice to act or not to act on you impulses.
Just my two cents
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Comments
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
My opinion on the matter is that if you are against gay marriage, then you shouldnt get gay married. You shouldnt go "You cant get married to a member of the same sex because I dont want you to." Marriage is a social construct; thats all it is. Many societies didnt have marriage rituals and werent staying with one mate their whole lives. Its not a big deal; the only time it is brought up is to get voters to polls.
As for saying that there is no substitute for a man and a woman parent, the truth is that there is no substitute for two parents. A child with a single parent or no parents is definitely worse off than a child with two gay parents. In fact, in many cultures before the age of European imperialism raised their children as a community; that way each child had maybe fifty parents. And this worked for them. So given the choice between a child going parentless and a child growing up with gay parents, you'd rather them be parentless?
The funny thing about allowing gay marriage is that it would bring more people into the middle class moral sphere. Marriage promotes sex with a single partner, and in addition to all the health benefits of that, it would help curb the promiscious nature associated with homosexuals.
And as for the only benefit being tax benefits, that is false. If a gay couple is together for twenty years and one of them is in the hospital, the other cant visit because they arent kin. If everything they own (house, car, etc) is in one of their's names they dont get the benefits of divorce (one person loses everything, the other gets everything... not right) and if one person dies without a will the other gets nothing.
I'm not saying its right. I am heterosexual and therefore will not get married to a man in my lifetime. Therefore it isnt right for me. For someone else, it is right and I think it would be wrong of me to deny them what they want since it doesnt affect me at all.
Besides, they should have to suffer through the pain of marriage like the rest of us.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
Thats kinda the point Baff, its not a choice. Its not something you can "pray away". And the rest about it is plain bull, there are easily as many and more deviant and sexually dangerous hetrosexuals in the world.
Point is though, that as a parent you dont get to choose if your child is hetro or homo, what is is what is. Its how you deal with it that is important and shows your character.
-Gooney
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
For your first point; that says more about society in general than anything. You should be asking why society discriminates against people in the first place and seek to change that. You wouldnt say "I dont want to have ain interracial child because they will be discriminated against," would you? Especially if the person you loved was of a different color.
Furthermore, there are ways for a gay couple to spread their seed. True, it wont contain genetic material from two partners (though combining two females is possible and has been done with lots of animals besides humans... maybe they have done humans, I havent read anything on it in awhile though so I cant be sure), but it can contain genetic material from your family. The way this is done is surrogate mothers in the case of males (a woman carries the baby, gives birth to it, and thats the extent of her involvement), or sperm donations in the case of females.
Want to know a fun fact? World wide there is a greater number of heterosexuals suffering from AIDS. It isnt a gay disease like religious conservatives from the 80s want you to think. Teach your kids safe sex and they will not get AIDS. Teach your kids to only have sex with one partner at a time and they won't get AIDS.
As for your statement on security, gay marriage would resolve that issue. If monogamy is supported, gays will be discouraged from being promiscuous. They will be more likely to have a single partner just like heterosexuals. Also, there is a large portion of the heterosexual community that engages in that same behavior you have mentioned. Ever been to college? Or even high school? The last I checked the kids were banging together like cymbals in an overworked marching band.
@ Gooney.
Get real.
I lived with loads of gays and loads of straights.
I never used to drive any straight men or women down to the local public lavatory at 11 pm every night. I did for every gay I lived with.
Those same public toilets where the only two local murders have occoured in my life time.
.
I've worked in gay clubs and I've worked in straight clubs.
I've never seen men or women dragged off the dancefloor into the toilets and men taking it turns to bum them. A nightly occourance in some of the clubs I worked.
.
I've worked in an aids clinic.
There were no hetrosexual men in attendance. Junkies were presumably to stoned to get off the sofa.
.
Gay is a choice. I'm not religious and "praying" isn't something I associate with hetrosexuality. The clergy was the previous refuge for gay men. (Still is). They only society they could be accepted in.
There is no "gay gene". It's a question of personal preference. You aren't born gay. You choose to be gay or maybe it is forced upon you. When some geneticist discovers the "gay gene", I'll eat my words.
Seems to me, you lot talk about gays but you don't actually know many,
@ Albinofreak,
I think it's probably smarter if I adapt my children to the world than adapt the world to my children don't you?
Gays are discriminted against. Get over it.
As it happens I'm planning on interacial children. There is an issue of racism for both me and any mixed race child in Japan. Which is why I intend to raise them here in England where it is not. It's not something I can protect them against completely, but I am still in the business of increasing their odds as much as I can.
.
Gay marriage doesn't bother me in the slightest. Will it stop gay men shagging total strangers, I doubt it, they seem to enjoy it.
.
I'm fully aware hetrosexuals get aids. The no.1 cause is sharing needles, the no.2 bottom sex. I shall obviously teach my kids to do neither.
It's not politically correct to call Aids the gay disease anymore? Oh dear. Sorry to offend your sensibilities.
.
Kids in college are not randomly propositioning men in public toilets. They are not shagging nameless strangers for 2 hours a night every night. And there isn't that same obvious danger that if guy A asks girl B for a shag at school, they will be so offended/repulsed they will physically murder him on the spot.
First off, we don't live on an island with homogenous populations. We live in a world with all kinds of different people. But let's just take your experiment a little further. What if you took a group of biologically sterile people and put them on one island and group of fertile humans on another. Extend that out as your case study.
The point is God made all different kinds of people for a lot of different reasons. Why don't you enjoy the contributions that gay people can make to society instead of trying to act like they're not worthy of your societal acceptance.
So why don't you jump on the biologically sterile people the same way you jump on gays? God made them sterile. Aren't they an abomination for that reason? Why would God put sterile people on the Earth? Hmmmmm... ????
Yeah, but we can't all be in an ideal family. And sometimes there just isn't a mother and father. So do you think an orphanage is a better solution for those kids? I would think a stable home life would be better.
And to quote Eddie Murphy as a source of wisdom???? C'mon man.
It's not cool to make fun of people. Didn't your mother and father teach you that? I would think that such a stable family life would have given you that lesson.
If I beleived that, I might find myself more attracted to a taller woman. A lot of people do.
Breaking peoples legs seems a stupid way of doing things.
.
You misundersatnd me, I'm not attempting to choose their sexuality, anymore than I am attempting to choose their profession, who they fall in love with, what subjects they study at school.
What I am attempting to do is to provide a positive role model for the choices I believe to be most likely to produce happy and successful people. To increase the odds of them living happy, safe, pleasant and fulfilled lives free from danger, prejudice and discrimination.
While I'm sure it is possible to do all these things and be gay, it is more possible to do them and be straight. As long as this is my belief, and it is, I shall always endeavour to pass on the benefits of my experience to my children. It would be immoral not to.
I would love my kid too if he were gay. I would want him to find a partner and be happy in life.
I disagree with you on one thing though. I don't think it's a choice at all. Why would anyone choose to be that way?
You can't marry a dog or goldfish because they are not able to give consent to marriage.
Now quit saying crazy stuff.
There are countless reasons why I care about the sexuality of my children. It's not about loving them any less, it's about helping them.
Being gay is not advantageous in life. Sorry. But if you are gay, you will be discriminated against.
Being gay doesn't increase the chance of me having grandchildren and perpetuating the family line. There is some self intrest involved. Nor should I particulalrly relish explaining it certain of my friends and relatives over dinner.
Being gay is physically dangerous. The only bigger cause of catching Aids than sticking your knob up peoples bums is sharing a needle.
Security. While not all gays are the same, that whole one night stand stuff, of picking up random single men and bringing them home or shagging them in the public toilets has a larger element of personal risk than regular dating.
I intend to maximise the survival, happiness and success opportunites for all my children. I might not be able to protect them from every danger or ensure all their endeavours are rewarded with success and happiness, but I can do my little part to adjust the odds in their favour.
You're sad. To say you wouldn't support your children. And then to say you would be embarassed of them as well.
Your children have never embarassed you?
You must be an absentee father.
.
Being "supportive" does not mean I get to skip on the moral guidance part.
Educating your children and shaping their upbringings is the duty of a parent. To equip them in the best way you know how to deal with the future.
I will not teach my children that being gay is every bit as alright as being straight. It isn't. It might be someday in the future in or in some fantasy society, but it isn't in this one. They will be discriminated against and it would be wrong for me to teach them to expect anything else.
There is no moral guidance, because I wouldn't tell my gay child there is something wrong with him. Because there isn't. And equipping them with the best way to deal with their future means letting them know that there are some fucked up people out there with attitudes like yours and letting them know that there are others that show love and understanding.
I wouldn't accept a religion that teaches people there is something wrong with them because of things they have no control over. If that's your religion then it's not right for me and my child. Take that crap somewhere else. We don't need your attempts at placing guilt on us.
I don't mind if you want to teach your gay child that being gay is cool, and that he will be discriminated against and that the people who do are nasty people. If I had a gay child, I would most likely teach him the same.
Personally I would prefer my child to chose a different path. I would like to teach my child that gays will be discriminated against and let him choose for himself. However, like all the choices I allow him to make, it will hopefully be tempered by my own judgement as mine has been by my own fathers before me.
I shall not just throw him out in the world and expect him to make very difficult decisions for himself out of "freedom" to be what ever he wants. I want that influence to come from me, and Mr Gay the new vicar, or Mr Gay his school teacher, Mr Gay my party animal friends or any other role model. That role is mine to fill.
I don't see where the love and understanding is in encouraging a child to chose a path that will bring him into direct conflict with normal society. Sinces the chances are that would bring very predictable misery, why wouldn't you encourage him to avoid it?
.
Personally I don't care if you and your son worship a gay or straight religion. Satanism, Christianity, Islam or Jedi. I would be very wary of any vicar wanting to discuss homosexuality if i was you. And if it was my son, he'd be changing sunday school the moment it happened.
against who?? god? prove it exists, then we'll decide if its a sin...until then, no.
Is gay marriage wrong?
is it wrong in the sense that (at this time) marriage is defined in most places between two members of the opposite sex? then yes, because the current definition does not allow for gay marriage. But this is a pretty ridiculous position to take considering all it would take would be a redefinition of marriage. It's not like the day that happens (and it will) these bigots will decide gay marriage is fine and dandy.
IMO, the best way to solve this problem is to not have state sanctioned marriage. Government should only come into play if one person tries to renege on the contract.
==========================
Where we split is on the whole choice issue. You believe it's a choice, I don't.
So, that's where the problem is.
I believe it is more enviroment and circumstance than active "choice".
If you were to bring him up in a permissive accepting kind of a "gays alright lets go to another gay wedding this week son", kind of an enviroment. I think the chances of him having a gay encounter is higher.
The more gay encounters you have, the more likely you are to start enjoying them.
.
I used to hate the taste of beer the first few times....
.
While I don't object to children being brought up in that enviroment, mine won't be. Neither will they be brought up surrounded by drugs or any type of crime, etc etc etc. Role models are important.
I agree...
-------------------------------------
Libertarian Party Website
The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.
Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual.
You think being gay is genetic....
There is a gene in your body that makes you want to stick you pole up another mans bum?
Presumably this same genetic difference can be seen all across the animal kingdom. And since it is genetic, there are families of gays. Your dad's gay, his dad was gay, chances are you will be gay too. Like how baldness and cancer runs in my family, or my mates family all have black skin, or a 1/4 of my peacocks are white.
Is that it?
I can't think of any gays from a long line of gays from my own personal social circle. Presumably if gay was controlled by gene, Darwinism dictates they would have died out millenia ago.
.
You are not "born gay". Get real.
I believe being gay isn't always a choice. I think homosexuality is all psychological. It can't be biological, like you're going to die unless you kiss another man. That's one part where I agree with Reavo.
However, engaging in homosexual sex is a choice. That's where choice comes in. That's where I (and coincidentally, the faith I belong to) say it's a sin.
The issue I have is that the whole 'gay culture' thing interferes with my way of life. I don't want the traditions of marriage changed. I don't want my kids to be told it's normal to be gay. I don't want my kid thinking he has to be a metrosexual because being otherwise means he's a gay-basher. People always talk about gay rights and everything, but they are perfectly happy to ignore the rights of heteros to preserve their way of life. I don't mind gay people living together, I wish them all the best happiness. But I wish you could do it without interfering with me and mine. Wasn't the whole 'civil union' thing good enough?
I don't know where I stand on gay couples raising kids. I mean, there's plenty of kids that need saving, and yes bringing kids into a loving family and happy home will do wonders for them. But I know that a large part of our social dynamic has to do with emulating our parents. Will this cause the child's personality to be skewed? Will it do any harm to the child's growth? I don't know the answers to those questions, I wish I did. What happens when my kid comes home from school in the 1st grade and asks why Bobby has two daddy's? How do I teach my kid that it's not normal to be gay without saying the wrong thing? Having the child of a gay couple in class with my own child will directly alter the way that my child is brought up, and interferes with the way I raise my kids. I mean I know I can't have control over everything, but that's one more thing to worry about.
Help me out here atleast. How am I supposed to deal with these things? Do gay people just figure that since they've been discriminated against, it's okay to interfere with other peoples traditions and such? That can't be true. So why the need to force your culture on mine?
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Why can't it be a combination of both nature and nurture?
I like your examples of genetic traits, but it might be possible that because homosexuality is more of a way of acting than of appearance, you might not have known there were “gay families”. Due to the way society looks at and treats homosexuals these “gay families” might have made the choice not to act on their predispositions.
I think it is a combination of both factors. Each has an important role, but to exclude one is not looking at the whole picture.
I also think that being gay is a choice, but only in the fact that you have a choice to act or not to act on you impulses.
Just my two cents
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.