Prussian Blue

[Will Robinson]

Gay marriage is now part of Canada.

and the world didn't come to an end.

Well yea, but it's only Canada...it's not like it's going on in the real world!

[Palzon]

It is my contention that the ONLY basis for marriage and family should be a loving couple who can nurture and care for their children, regardless of sexual orientation.

Please define "loving couple". What is your metric(s)?
(jump in any time, Dedman ...)

i mean "loving" in the most common intuitive sense: respectful, honest, kind, affectionate, gentle, and most of all - self-sacrificing.

of course, there is much more that goes into a successful relationship. but i think this is the best answer i could give to your question.

on the other hand, quality of communication, and certainly caregiver knowledge and skill, are crucial to a successful relationship, let alone to raise children.

as far as measuring one against another, this is much more difficult. i have long believed that there is what is most desirable, and there is what is unacceptable. i try to choose what is somewhere in between. i think it is possible to agree somewhat on what is unacceptable. therefore, we can set a kind of baseline. within certain perameters, differences are nominal. below certain perameters, unreasonable harm is done.

[Diedel]

Interesting. Prussian Blue may be white folks answer to the congressional black caucus and Lewis Farrakhan (sp?). I just find it whacked when white people try to promote their race, they get lambasted as being racist.
When black folk do so it is considered right and proper.
Hey Loui, maybe we should have a million white man march in Washinton.

Woody,

• are you sick? Haven't you read that interview with these girls? What they are saying is 100% Neonazi ideology! Look how they talk about 'Aryans'! See how they even question the reality of the Holocaust!
  
  You just cannot compare the Nazi ideology and history to black racism (which doesn't mean I want to apologize the latter).
  
  I am German, and I hate this Nazi scum with a passion. They have to be fought with determination.

Palzon,

• a child needs a male and a female parent to grow up healthily. Them being loving should be a matter of fact. I find the idea of homosexual couples having children simply perverted. They chose to live in an unnatural sexual relationship. So they cannot naturally have children, which is a good thing! That's what they elected for themselves, and so be it. Imo it is child abuse to raise a child with parents that a) will deny a parent of the other sex to the child and b) very likely deform its sexuality by their very example. This is perverted, period.
  
  And don't tell me homosexuality was inherited/genetic. I don't believe that. It's acquired, and I find it speaks for itself that it's always homosexual scientists who claim it was genetic.

[roid]

oh boy

Palzon,

• a child needs a male and a female parent to grow up healthily.

children with only one parent grow up healthy enough.

Them being loving should be a matter of fact. I find the idea of homosexual couples having children simply perverted. They chose to live in an unnatural sexual relationship. So they cannot naturally have children, which is a good thing!

They can not produce a child between just the 2 of them, no. But they are not sterile. A donar mother or father can be used.
We don't deny sterile heterosexual people access to invitro-fertilisation and other techniques saying "nature didn't mean them to procreate" now do we? The entire adoption system would be rendered invalid if natural ability to procreate were a prerequisite.
We don't live in a perfect world. Not everyone falls into your neat catagorys (you obviously do though - go you!)

That's what they elected for themselves, and so be it. Imo it is child abuse to raise a child with parents that a) will deny a parent of the other sex to the child and b) very likely deform its sexuality by their very example. This is perverted, period.

The general concensus is that SEX is perverted, period.
i don't know how you can sanitise one sexual act as "pure" while labeling another as "perverted". Let me guess, you're using a religious book. I certainly didn't need to watch my parents having sex to know if it were for me or not. I suppose you grew up watching your parents have sex, and this is why you are heterosexual?
A parent of the opposite sex is also denied to children in single parents familys. You may find in homosexual relationships that regardless of physical sex, one partner is (comparitively) mentally gender masculine and one is (comparitively) mentally gender feminine anyway.

And don't tell me homosexuality was inherited/genetic. I don't believe that. It's acquired, and I find it speaks for itself that it's always homosexual scientists who claim it was genetic.[/list]

yes and it must also be homosexual zoologists that report homosexuality in the animal kingdom. omg it's all a conspiracy!

[Diedel]

oh boy

Palzon,

• a child needs a male and a female parent to grow up healthily.

children with only one parent grow up healthy enough.

Clueless bub you are. *C*l*u*e*l*e*s*s*. Children need both parents. That has been determined by research (you know Google, do you?)

They can not produce a child between just the 2 of them, no. But they are not sterile. A donar mother or father can be used.
We don't deny sterile heterosexual people access to invitro-fertilisation and other techniques saying "nature didn't mean them to procreate" now do we? The entire adoption system would be rendered invalid if natural ability to procreate were a prerequisite.
We don't live in a perfect world. Not everyone falls into your neat catagorys (you obviously do though - go you!)

You cannot see the difference? Really not? The sterile ppl did not chose their fate. If homosexuals want to have and raise kids, let them do it with a partner of the opposite sex. Physically they're able to.

The general concensus is that SEX is perverted, period.
i don't know how you can sanitise one sexual act as "pure" while labeling another as "perverted".

I don't know where you got that wisdom from. It's not the general consensus here. Ponder at the meaning of 'perverted' and you'll eventually understand my distinction a little better. I think it is very easy to understand that performing a sexual act the way human beings have been designed to is 'regular' (you introduced 'pure' to give this discussion a notion I did not intend), while the other is ... perverted ('twisted', huh?)

yes and it must also be homosexual zoologists that report homosexuality in the animal kingdom. omg it's all a conspiracy!

Oh, do they? And where's the proof that there is as much relevance and long-time relationship to homosexual actions of animals as for humans? Did these zoologists ever check whether their 'homosexual' animals generally had a 'normal' sex life? This stinks for ppl trying to prove their thesis no matter what, not test them against reality.

There's a bit of a difference between animals and human beings. The latter are built for living in social relationships to an extreme extent (please don't come with ants or bees now. I trust you see the difference, do you?). Large parts of the human brain are dedicated to interpreting social signals. It's ridiculous to break human sexuality down to simple physical issues. Hence I repeat my statement that I believe homosexuality is acquired.

Let me finish this with stating that you are making yourself so much the faultless guardian of the 'morale' you believe is the correct one as you resent me doing for the standards I believe in.

[Kilarin]

Let me give you an alternate point of view. A conservative Christian who is in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

A long time ago, there were two kinds of marriage. Marriage in a church, and Marriage by a Justice of the Peace. BOTH were legal marriages. BUT, to get married in a church, you had to meet that particular church's standards for getting married. People who got married by the Justice of the Peace were legaly married, but the church was free to not recognize that marriage as "legit" in their own eyes.

We have now moved away from that model, and allowed the state to define exactly what a marriage is, and look at the results. Marriage is, in my humble opinion, in a SAD state. Today, conservative Christians keep screaming that we must get the government to "Defend Marriage". Well, we put the defense of marriage into the governments hands already and they didn't defend it very well.

And thats why I'm in FAVOR of civil unions. It's time to seperate marriage into two types again. It's NOT the goverments job to decide what kind of marriage is "right" or "wrong". That is the job of individuals and churches.

All the government should care about is legal issues and contracts. So, make ALL marriages, from the governments point of view, into a simple contract for sharing property, inheritence rights and certain other legal issues that have traditionally gone along with marriage. The government shouldn't CARE who signs on the dotted line. A man and a woman, two men and one women, a woman and another woman, a man and his dog. It's just a contract. Who cares.

But the church! The church DOES care. And with this model, each church would be free to defend marriage as strictly as they believed necessary. The Baptist church could refuse to marry same sex couples. The Catholic church could put whatever restrictions it wished on divorce. And if a same sex couple wants to get married, well by gum, don't do it in a Baptist church, they don't approve. DUH! Go to a church that does approve, or just get a contract with the Justice of the peace. In the eyes of the law, its exactly the same. And the Baptists don't have to feel that they were forced to recognize a marriage they have decided is immoral and wrong.

Each church and individual could define for themselves all of the moral issues about what a marriage is, and is not. The government just deals with the legal issues of "Hey, you signed on the dotted line that this person got half of your worldly goods, now fork over!"

The best way to defend marriage, is to stop the government from defining marriage.

And in the process of doing the above, it becomes much clearer that the government shouldn't be trying to make decisions about what kind of home is "best" for raising kids in. At least not at the detailed moral level of whether or not two different sex parents are better than two same sex parents.

I'll state quite bluntly that I think a kid is better off being raised by a man and a women. BUT, why should you agree with me? I ALSO think that a kid is better off being raised in a Christian home. Am I going to go out and yank kids out of every Hindu, Muslim, and Athiest home out there? Heck no! If I did, they might try to yank MY kid out of MY home. Leave such subtle distictions of "what is best" for kids up to individuals. The government should ensure that kids have adequate physical and emotional care, and are free from abuse. Beyond that, you will get a different opinion from each person alive.

So, much as I hate and detest the neo-nazi nonsense, I would even let April Gaede raise her kids with her own philosophy. I MUST defend her right to be a fool and teach the same foolishness to her kids, or someday someone will decide that MY philosophy is foolish and that *I* have no right to teach it to my kid.

Kilarin

[roid]

They can not produce a child between just the 2 of them, no. But they are not sterile. A donar mother or father can be used.
We don't deny sterile heterosexual people access to invitro-fertilisation and other techniques saying "nature didn't mean them to procreate" now do we? The entire adoption system would be rendered invalid if natural ability to procreate were a prerequisite.
We don't live in a perfect world. Not everyone falls into your neat catagorys (you obviously do though - go you!)

You cannot see the difference? Really not? The sterile ppl did not chose their fate. If homosexuals want to have and raise kids, let them do it with a partner of the opposite sex. Physically they're able to.

Yes they can but it's not a requirement, there is choice. I don't think this issue to you is as simple as you make out, because what happens if someone makes themselves sterile BY CHOICE (it happens) and then they want kids? ie: if a man in a heterosexual relationship (or do they also have to be legally married? i forget) has had a vasectomy, is he then instantly not allowed to adopt either?
ability to reproduce naturally is not a valid prerequisite test for parenting ability.

The general concensus is that SEX is perverted, period.
i don't know how you can sanitise one sexual act as "pure" while labeling another as "perverted".

I don't know where you got that wisdom from. It's not the general consensus here. Ponder at the meaning of 'perverted' and you'll eventually understand my distinction a little better. I think it is very easy to understand that performing a sexual act the way human beings have been designed to is 'regular' (you introduced 'pure' to give this discussion a notion I did not intend), while the other is ... perverted ('twisted', huh?)

yes perhaps i should have used another word (such as twisted). Taking the official definition of Perverted as being synomious with Sexually Deviant, my point still stands that sexual tastes are not a valid test for parenting ability. You may have no idea just how rich the world of sexual deviance is - ppl have fetishes/get off on a lot of "weird ★■◆●", BDSM being a fine example. It does not effect their parenting skills.

I agree, their GENDER (if i may be so bold as to include more than just male/female in that catagory) may effect their collective parenting skills, as available appropriate gender rolemodels are important for children. But if you can accept single parents as being able to raise children - it don't see how you can argue that homosexual parents are WORSE than a single parent. (you used words like "perverted", "deformed", and "child abuse")

yes and it must also be homosexual zoologists that report homosexuality in the animal kingdom. omg it's all a conspiracy!

Oh, do they? And where's the proof that there is as much relevance and long-time relationship to homosexual actions of animals as for humans? Did these zoologists ever check whether their 'homosexual' animals generally had a 'normal' sex life? This stinks for ppl trying to prove their thesis no matter what, not test them against reality.

There's a bit of a difference between animals and human beings. The latter are built for living in social relationships to an extreme extent (please don't come with ants or bees now. I trust you see the difference, do you?). Large parts of the human brain are dedicated to interpreting social signals. It's ridiculous to break human sexuality down to simple physical issues. Hence I repeat my statement that I believe homosexuality is acquired.

Yes ants and bees would be poor examples - they are insects living in a hive society - very different to human society. I would therefore use Mammals as willing examples, i needn't even bother quoting sources as homosexuality among mammals is thesedays common knownledge. If you were under a rock and missed the info somehow, do a google search.

Let me finish this with stating that you are making yourself so much the faultless guardian of the 'morale' you believe is the correct one as you resent me doing for the standards I believe in.

Your standards are fine, just don't talk like they are the only ones. In your original post you tried to lay out definitions that i disagree with. A child does not need a male and a female parent to grow up healthy, what is and isn't "perverted" to you or me is a personal issue, and i do not belive that mere exposure to another's homosexual relationships will mentally "deform" a child anymore than exposure to another's heterosexual relationship will "deform" a homosexual child.

Clueless bub you are. *C*l*u*e*l*e*s*s*. Children need both parents. That has been determined by research (you know Google, do you?)

Beware of calling me clueless. Gender issues are a personal interest of mine.

[Diedel]

Sterilized vs. homosexual couples

If a sterilization breaks the reproduction process - it does not deny it like homosexuality. The point is that a sterilized heterosexual couple still makes up for two parents of different sex with a regular attitude to reproduction. As I said: Physically, homosexuals have the option to make and raise children with a partner of the opposite sex. So my point is not ability for natural reproduction, but willingness to it!

Heterosexual parents, single parents, homosexual parents

The ideal case - I think you will agree - is two loving heterosexual parents, as they will provide their children with the care and the rolemodels they need. A single parent - given he/she has normal sexual orientation - is insofar still better than a homosexual couple as he/she will not give a wrong rolemodel to the children, and that's my main concern with homosexual parenting: Where on all the earth should a boy get a healthy (yes, healthy) role model from, if his 'parents' are two homosexual men, one being the 'man', the other the 'woman' (somehow, in a gay manner)? That stinks to heaven!

Insects/Mammals/Humans

You avoided my point: Where's the proof that mammals are persistently homosexual in the way humans are and their 'homosexuality' is not a temporary deviation?

[roid]

sorry diedel i was still editing my post. i'm finished now.

[Diedel]

Kilarin,

as far as church goes in marriage, the Bible only demands you to marry according to the standards of the culture you live in. So marrying by a Justice of Peace is perfectly acceptable at least according to biblical standards. Marrying in a church simply means explicitly asking for God's blessing (which isn't a bad thing ).

As far as freedom of raising your children every way you want goes (apart from open abuse): I think there are bounds and limits for this, too, and if somebody is going to raise little Hitlers (or little Terrorists, how about that?), something needs to be done about it.

roid,

Furthermore, the nature of a standard is that it is not arbitrary. It can have some broadth, but it also sets limits. A standard is a measuring rod, something accepted (generally spoken) as tried and tested and reliable. Therefore, I (and you as well) will reject things contradicting my standards.

Honestly, I did not find your defense of your standards/opinions too convincing yet.


If you say a child doesn't need to parents of different sex to grow up healthily, and you claim to be an expert in sex/relationship issues, you are lying.

I wonder how on all the earth there can be any discussion about what forms of sex are (allow me the expression) 'normal' and which are not. You don't stick your gas tube in your car's exhaust to refuel it, or do you?

[roid]

Sterilized vs. homosexual couples

If a sterilization breaks the reproduction process - it does not deny it like homosexuality. The point is that a sterilized heterosexual couple still makes up for two parents of different sex with a regular attitude to reproduction. As I said: Physically, homosexuals have the option to make and raise children with a partner of the opposite sex. So my point is not ability for natural reproduction, but willingness to it!

Heterosexual parents, single parents, homosexual parents

The ideal case - I think you will agree - is two loving heterosexual parents, as they will provide their children with the care and the rolemodels they need. A single parent - given he/she has normal sexual orientation - is insofar still better than a homosexual couple as he/she will not give a wrong rolemodel to the children, and that's my main concern with homosexual parenting: Where on all the earth should a boy get a healthy (yes, healthy) role model from, if his 'parents' are two homosexual men, one being the 'man', the other the 'woman' (somehow, in a gay manner)? That stinks to heaven!

"Wrong", "Unhealthy" rolemodels?
Wow, you're really intollerant. I think i'll insert some suitable anger into my response...
Here genious (lol i can't spell 'genius'): Where on earth should a boy get a "Healthy" male rolemodel from WHEN HIS ONLY PARENT IS A SINGLE MOTHER? When will ppl like you learn that we don't live in a world of black and white, there are more than just 2 options here. Tell me: where do transexual, transgender, intersex, bisexual, homosexual, hermaphrodite, asexual, and more children get their helpful sexual identity rolemodels from?
From society.


Homosexuality may "stink" to you, but... ★■◆● you*. It's not up to you to decide what is and isn't sexually "right" for other people. Gay parents don't make gay kids, homosexuality is neither completely nature nor nurture, genetic nor upbringing.

(* harsh words yes, but you may fail to see just how offensive you are being. This subject is quite personal to some of us.)

Insects/Mammals/Humans

You avoided my point: Where's the proof that mammals are persistently homosexual in the way humans are and their 'homosexuality' is not a temporary deviation?

no i didn't avoid it, i suggested you do a quick google search with full confidence you would find such information as this (here's my quick google search you can borrow):

...male flamingo pairs, who mate, build nests and sometimes rear foster chicks.

Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages...

Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere -- all right, they steal them -- and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.

I wonder how on all the earth there can be any discussion about what forms of sex are (allow me the expression) 'normal' and which are not. You don't stick your gas tube in your car's exhaust to refuel it, or do you?

hmm... perhaps you should start a thread on "what is sex".

here's a thought that may just make your brain 'splode:

Would hermaphroditic sex be against your religion?
Now think of all the other people with naturally non-standard sexuality, and you see how your rules are for a fantasy black and white world that isn't reality for many people.

[Hahnenkam]

Clueless bub you are. *C*l*u*e*l*e*s*s*. Children need both parents. That has been determined by research (you know Google, do you?)

hmmm. I was raised by a single mom. I turned out just fine.



[edit] this is a gem: (re: homosexual parents)

very likely deform its sexuality by their very example

[edit]removed personal attack in response to Lothar's request. Diedel, I suggest you check Pubmed or Google scholar for research on this matter. I did, and found very few articles supporting this. The overwhelming majority of research seems to show no significant difference in sexual orientation between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised in traditional homes.

[Kilarin]

As far as freedom of raising your children every way you want goes (apart from open abuse): I think there are bounds and limits for this, too, and if somebody is going to raise little Hitlers (or little Terrorists, how about that?), something needs to be done about it.

But lets take it to it's logical conclusion. There is as significant portion of the left that feels that raising a child as a conservative evangelical Christian is raising them to believe in a intollerant, dangerous, violent religion. These people believe that the world would be a much safer and happier place if we made it illegal for conservative Christians to propigate their ideology to their kids. The Soviet Union agreed and actually DID put limits on how one could teach religion to children.

I don't like the neo-nazi's. As a matter of fact, I come very close to hating them. BUT, as long as they have not done anything violent/illegal, I MUST defend their right to teach thier kids to be the same kind of fools they are. Otherwise, the folks who feel the same way about me that I feel about the neo-Nazis will be coming to MY house one day to take away MY kid.

You don't stick your gas tube in your car's exhaust to refuel it, or do you?

But should we make it illegal? (as long as you have the owners permission)

Many heterosexual couples engage in acts that qualify as "sodomy". Do we challenge those couples right to raise kids? Let's take it back further. Not to far back in history, anything other than the "Missionary Position" was considered deviant sex. Would the people of that age have been right in taking the children away from any heterosexual couple who engaged in sexual activity outside that very limited range?

It is VERY dangerous to attempt to legislate against "deviant" sexual behavior, because sooner or later someone will come along who finds YOUR behavior deviant.

Please note: I am talking about legislation. I think it is perfectly right for anyone to take a moral/religious/heck I'm just grossed out, position against certain sexual practices. And to defend that position in public. If someone else is offended by your intollerance, tough, you are offended by their practices. I don't think they have the right to LEGISLATE on it. Which includes determining who legaly qualifies as adequate parents.

Kilarin

[Lothar]

Moderator note:

Regardless of how "close to home" this discussion is for some of you, we have standards for behavior in this forum, and one of those is "no personal attacks". Attack the other person's ideology all you want, talk about how warped you think certain ideologies or behaviors are in general terms all you want, but no more personal attacks ("f*** you", "you're clueless", etc. included.)

Discussion of Nazis, racism, homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. is inherently offensive to a lot of people on both sides of each issue. If you're not calm enough or mature enough to shrug off the offense without lashing out, it's time to take a break from E&C.

This is your only warning. I'm not going to go back and delete previous offenses, but I don't want to see any more.

[Lothar]

The best way to defend marriage, is to stop the government from defining marriage. :)

Word.

IMO, the government should recognize one and only one relationship: "family". Any two or more people who consider themselves family should be able to enter into such a contractual relationship (and have a checkbox for "property division", ranging from "everyone keeps their own" to "everything is split equally all ways".) Gay couple, straight couple, man living with elderly mom, best friends who are totally celibate, brother and sister, woman and 5 children, whatever... they're family, and they should have all the shared benefits and responsibilities that come with it.

it becomes much clearer that the government shouldn't be trying to make decisions about what kind of home is "best" for raising kids in.

Totally agreed... EXCEPT in the case of adoption. When placing a child, the government should require a very high standard, and that means evaluating such things as religious belief and involvement, sexual behavior, etc. I know that's totally politically incorrect, but when it comes to ensuring an adopted child's welfare, the whole picture should be looked at. It's a judgement call, so use all the information available to make the judgement.

In the case of a child born into a home, no matter how wacky the parent(s) might be, the government should only get involved if there's actual abuse or neglect. In this case, I don't consider "teaching your child a warped philosophy" to be abuse. As much as I think raising a child to be a Nazi, or, heck, raising your child to think smoking is cool, is a bad idea, that's not the government's business.

[Kilarin]

EXCEPT in the case of adoption. When placing a child, the government should require a very high standard, and that means evaluating such things as religious belief and involvement, sexual behavior, etc. I know that's totally politically incorrect, but when it comes to ensuring an adopted child's welfare, the whole picture should be looked at. It's a judgement call, so use all the information available to make the judgement.

But who makes the judgement call of what religions are "good" and which are "bad"? There was a case several years back where a custody case was settled in favor of one parent over the other, specifically because one parent was a Jehovah's Witness and therefore not as fit of a parent as the other.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. I disagree rather strongly with their views. But I find it quite disturbing that a judge would decide that belonging to a religious minority makes you an unsuitable parent. Will MY religion be targeted next?

So, I agree, that when placing a child up for adoption, we have a responsibility to place them in a good home. But actually implementing that requires human being making judgement calls that I'm quite uncomfortable with. ESPECIALLY when it concerns religion.

Kilarin

[Diedel]

Kilarin,

what you are writing sounds a little naive. There's something behind the label of a 'religious minority' that made the judge cast his sentence.

The way you put it to give the impression 'poor' Jehova's Witnesses would be unrightfully persecuted, when in fact they at least tend to violate human rights. For me personally, the Jehova's Witnesses doctrine is not religion, but a means to control people, to take away their freedom by seeding fear in them and isolating them from people that think differently. Doing such things is one trademark of totalitarian sects. Do you know that Jehova's Witnesses cast members that don't obey their rules out, and every other JW must completely shun them? Given the fact that JW's must not have any contacts outside of their organization's members, this means that such outcasts are put under tremendous pressure, as belonging somewhere is a basic trait of human existance, it's built into our hardware, our gray matter. Every organization acting like that acts against humanity, imo.

Btw, the way some (or maybe some more) conservative American Christians act and express themselves, all I can say is: Where is Christ in that? It's simply not christian, and they're begging for a reaction. On the other hand do I believe that a lot of true Christian doctrine is deliberately misinterpreted to turn it against Christians.

There is a way to judge whether something is acceptable or not, and there is also a way to judge whether the base for the judgement is alright or not.

Your very constitution (if you're American; and ours, too) set standards here which the actions of ppl, corporations, etc. must comply with. I think you will agree that the U.S. constitution sets a good and healthy standard.

You cannot say there is no way to judge whether something is ok or not. The only thing you can say is that such a judgement always has to be made very careful in order not to be abusive itself.

There are however clear cases imo where everybody 'normal' knows action has to be taken. Criminals will be persecuted and punished.

Here in Germany it is a crime to further hatred against other nationalities. 'Prussian Blue' would be in big trouble here for what they say, and that 'mother' would risk her children being taken in custody to protect them from their own mothers hatred infiltrating them. You will go into jail for using Nazi emblems (like swastikas) here or propagating Nazi ideology - in whatever disguise.

I think a good way to judge whether something is healthy and acceptable or not is to look at its fruit.

You don't stick your gas tube in your car's exhaust to refuel it, or do you?

But should we make it illegal? (as long as you have the owners permission)

This was an argument for homosexual erotic practises being 'twisted', not for them not being allowed to adopt children. If two homosexuals want to live together like that, let them have it. But protect minors from their way of life!

[Diedel]

roid,

to you who believes it is the time to pour out his rightful anger like the Wrath of God on me.

A child that has been raised by a single parent will lack something unless relatives or friends sufficiently replace it (-> role model). I know enough children raised like that, and those w/o a father crave for one, they crave for a male giving them what most mothers cannot. I've seen it often enough. I am a father myself. And don't you tell me a homosexual role model (male or female) would be healthy. There are enough ppl like that who are homosexual simply because they couldn't find a sexual identity that was inline with their physical being, or didn't want to because of abuse.

I find your opinions and attitudes at least as disgusting as you find mine. Yet I have held back and tried to give my opinion in a socially acceptable manner (the worst I have said here is 'clueless', related to a certain area of knowledge). This seems to be asked to much from some ppl here.

Some here seem to believe that my having an opinion they strongly disagree with entitles them to insult me and pour their contempt on me. Actually that is a display of arrogance and disrespect of others.

Btw, I don't reject homosexuals - I reject their (usual) lifestyle and practises. That's a difference, but maybe one you cannot grasp.

Who do you think you are.

[Kilarin]

The way you put it to give the impression 'poor' Jehova's Witnesses would be unrightfully persecuted, when in fact they at least tend to violate human rights.

How? By worshiping the way they choose? Or do you mean because they don't take blood transfusions? I disagree with the JW's on this, but should the government mandate specific medical treatments regardless of the patients choice? I know this is an extra difficult decision in the case of children. But 200 years ago the government would have been mandating that your children be bled when they were ill.

I think you will agree that the U.S. constitution sets a good and healthy standard.

Yes, and no. The U. S. Constitution (I'm not very familiar with the German one), is a great document to build a government on. You will note that it spends most of it's time protecting the people from the government. The government is not fit to make moral decisions beyond the most basic: "Don't hurt anyone" and "You have to keep your agreements".

There are however clear cases imo where everybody 'normal' knows action has to be taken.

Yes, there seem to be a lot of those. Sixty years ago in the south of the U.S. everybody "normal" could tell that the black population needed to be gotten under control. So the "normal" people put on white hoods and lynched the uppity blacks. That and a few cross burnings would obviously put the rest of the black population into it's proper place. These actions were approved of by the vast majority of the "normal" population down here. The "normal" population could tell that it was the right, the DECENT thing to do. The way to keep the "Not Normal" people from spreading their "nor normal" ways among us decent white folk.

Needless to say, I'm a bit nervous when the "normal" people attempt to enforce any morality more complicated than "Don't hurt others" and "Keep your agreements".

Here in Germany it is a crime to further hatred against other nationalities.

While I agree with the rule in spirit, I think it's a bad thing in practice. We must be tollerant, even of intollerance.

Kilarin

[Diedel]

How? By worshiping the way they choose? Or do you mean because they don't take blood transfusions? I disagree with the JW's on this, but should the government mandate specific medical treatments regardless of the patients choice? I know this is an extra difficult decision in the case of children. But 200 years ago the government would have been mandating that your children be bled when they were ill.

I wrote a little more about them.

Yes, and no. The U. S. Constitution (I'm not very familiar with the German one), is a great document to build a government on. You will note that it spends most of it's time protecting the people from the government. The government is not fit to make moral decisions beyond the most basic: "Don't hurt anyone" and "You have to keep your agreements".

That's pretty much already.

There are however clear cases imo where everybody 'normal' knows action has to be taken.

Yes, there seem to be a lot of those. Sixty years ago in the south of the U.S. everybody "normal" could tell that the black population needed to be gotten under control. So the "normal" people put on white hoods and lynched the uppity blacks. That and a few cross burnings would obviously put the rest of the black population into it's proper place. These actions were approved of by the vast majority of the "normal" population down here. The "normal" population could tell that it was the right, the DECENT thing to do. The way to keep the "Not Normal" people from spreading their "nor normal" ways among us decent white folk.

Needless to say, I'm a bit nervous when the "normal" people attempt to enforce any morality more complicated than "Don't hurt others" and "Keep your agreements".

You know as well as I do that this is an invalid argument and that these ppl were as much right in this as the Nazis were in killing Jews, Gipsies and all the many other ppl. And then there were a lot of Americans who did not think this was right - both black and white ones, and who fought against this.

That's why I said you need to be careful in your judgement, and need to have a sound foundation for it. What had happened in Nazi Germany or the American south 60 years ago was against good morale and ethics, and even so much more against true Biblical standards (which are valued so high esp. in the U.S.).

I don't think it's very helpful to constantly come with extreme examples that actually distort any reasonable argumentation, and avoid half of what I write.

[Kilarin]

I don't think it's very helpful to constantly come with extreme examples that actually distort any reasonable argumentation, and avoid half of what I write.

Guilty of coming up with extreme arguments, but I didn't intend to avoid anything you wrote. The extra JW stuff wasn't there when I started my reply. Sorry.

Do you know that Jehova's Witnesses cast members that don't obey their rules out, and every other JW must completely shun them?

Yes. I'm aware of that. Like I said, I am NOT defending the Jehovahs's Witnesses doctrine or practices. I disagree with them on just about everything. I AM defending their right to believe and worship as they please. And this includes, as the US Constitution puts it, "the right of free association". The right to associate with whom you please inherently includes the right to NOT associate with anyone you don't wish to associate with. I don't LIKE the JW's policy of shunning. Actually, I'll go further than that, I think it is WRONG. But, while it is cruel, it is within their rights to quit associating with anyone they please. If I don't like my brother-in-law, I'm free to quit attending family gatherings where he is, and to not invite him over to my house.
And if we are going to discuss coersive religions. MOST conservative Christian religions threaten anyone who leaves their organization with being burned foreve in God's personal torture chamber. That's another doctrine I happen to disagree with, but I wouldn't deny parents the right to adopt just because they were Catholic or Baptist.

You know as well as I do that this is an invalid argument and that these ppl were as much right in this as the Nazis were in killing Jews, Gipsies and all the many other ppl.

My example was extreme, but it is my belief that the attempt to enforce "normality" has a tendency to drift into extremes. I think history supports that. Look at the Salem Witch trials. Good people attempting to stomp out Satanism, what could be wrong with that?

For a less extreme example, look at the rules the puritans enforced as soon as they got to America. While I would agree with many of their rules, I wouldn't want to live in a town where people who didn't go to church were put into the stocks and publicly humiliated.

My point is simply that you can NOT trust the majority of the people to be right. We are all safer if the government stays out of religion and moral choices beyond the absolute minimum required to maintain a society.

Kilarin

[Diedel]

Kilarin,

I am sure that judge's decision wasn't based on the JW's form of worship, but on knowledge of their socially abusive, sectarian practises.

[Kilarin]

To you faultless sentinels and high priests of tolerance (the essence of which you define, and which - slightly contradictive - does not include me

I, for one, DO include you. I think you have every right to believe that homosexuality is deviant. I will defend your right to preach it from the pulpit and to shout it from the rooftops. I just don't want that extended to include forbidding homosexual couples to adopt children.

I am not going to expose myself to your hatred here any more.

I understand. The thread was getting too personal, which is too bad.

Kilarin

[roid]

There are enough ppl like that who are homosexual simply because they couldn't find a sexual identity that was inline with their physical being, or didn't want to because of abuse.

the later i accept (abuse).
but the former, that "There are enough ppl like that who are homosexual simply because they couldn't find a sexual identity that was inline with their physical being", i disagree with, i've not heard this before, and i'd therefore like something to back it up.

You have often in your posts referred to homosexuality in all manner of negative connotations, including that "children need to be protected from exposure to it". So you deserve all the scorn you are getting. How about i tell Thrawn that because he's black, children need to be protected from him? It was once considered "normal" to think that way, but it's pretty offensive by today's standards.

Point being that what is and isn't normal is subjective. I think it wise to have a more open mind. Considering how much our standards of "normal" have changed over time - judging the inherent "goodness" of a thing solely by how well it conforms to your contemporary views of "normality" has proven to have disasterous historical consequences, and contemporary consequences such as discrimination and the more extreme: hate-groups.

What had happened in Nazi Germany or the American south 60 years ago was against good morale and ethics

You say that now. But if you lived back in that time do you really think you would have been immune to the contemporary views of the time? History suggests that you may have accepted Nazi doctrine - many obviously did - and there were no different to you and me - they simply lived in a contemporary time that had different views of right and wrong. We've learned from that now that what the majority considers "right" "moral" "ethical" or "normal" is no guarantee. You have used words like these regularly throughout your posts, seemingly oblivious that they are contemporary subjective terms.

Interestingly i was a Jehovah's Witness for the first 22-24 years of my life (i have only recently left). Their cult-like social structure was one reason i left, another major reason was their unaccepting views on homosexuality. So it's rather ironic they have been brought up in this discussion.
(i doubt anyone here knows this)
my heart is truly touched by your understanding of the pressures involved in leaving the organisation.
<3

[Phoenix Red]

I've not posted here so far because I didn't think an OMG at the original link was really very productive. But since the parenting angle of the thread has worked out, I'll participate.

I do think that "all things being equal" (which is impossible yes, but has to be assumed in order for the comparison to be valid) having two same-sex parents puts a child at a disadvantage compared to having a male and a female parent.

I don't think this is fair, and I don't think it's the parents' fault, and I certainly don't think same sex parents are in any way inferior. But I find it hard to deny the fact that since there IS a stigma to homosexuality, the child will be at a social disadvantage due to both the factual differences in his family from the "norm" and any perceptions the child gains which are different from the "norm."

I want to stress these are by no means crushing, tragic, or probably even significant, but I want to bring up the fact they exist.


All things considered I think the OP was a good demonstration of how independantly of other factors, there are perceptions learned from parents that have a very real effect on the child's life, and also that those effects can range vastly in overall impact. I definitely think the "prussian blue" girls have been messed up more through being taught abnormal assumptions than would happen with children raised with alternative views on homosexuality.

[Vertigo 99]

[little disclaimer]
i havent read all this thread because thats not what im about. i dont really care what anyone says about this debate, i know where I stand, and i dont like putting energy into making others agree with me. they probably have great reasons for believing what they do, and i aint changin' that, and thye aint changin' me.

to be honest, you probably shouldnt care about my views, and its fine if someone immediately says that my post is worthless if im not going to participate in the debate.

i'm just gonna put this out there for the people who feel like arguing the same sex marriage side a bit more; pretend roid is saying this or something.

[actual stuff]
Does anyone KNOW anybody with two parents that are same sex? I think its impossible to have a non biased survey that actually SHOWS that same sex marriage kids are more f*cked up than non same sex kids. what we need is a hermeneutic (i think thats the word) approach to this type of thing.

I will put out that there that I know a kid with two moms, and he's (at least seemingly) probably the nicest, most well adjusted, kid I've ever met in my life. I'm not even exaggerating, i dont think ive met anyone nicer. This kid is really really ★■◆●ing nice; youd have to meet him to know im not lieing. Hell, I didn't even know he had two moms until somebody told me. There is no possible way of telling.

People who say that you can't have a normal kid with same sex parents; is he an exception to the rule, or the norm? What aside your gut tells you he's not the norm? How many DIFFERENT sex kids are fucked up? Is the number really higher for same sex kids??


[edit] i looked back on the thread a bit, and giving up an argument because you can't back up your views and then saying you already won the argument and youre sick of getting bashed is bull★■◆●. grow some skin, explain yourself better, link to the evidence that supports your ideas, and knock out some argument-teeth for god's sake.