Homosexuals and Marriage

[Zuruck]

Yep, election year politics. Not too sure why such an issue is made to appease about 10% of the base...makes no sense to me. Does it really matter that much? Will life on earth end if it's allowed? No, so why bother. Give them the piece of paper, the tax breaks, whatever else you get when you are married, who cares?

[Shadowfury333]

Give them the piece of paper, the tax breaks, whatever else you get when you are married, who cares?

Unfortunately, and this addresses the Church thing, homosexuals are not out necessarily to simply have the right to get married, if you look at all the effort put into "gay pride" and into getting churches to recognize the whole thing, the far larger goal is one of ensuring that all people see their choice as valid, if not preferable. If it were simply about marriage, They would've stopped putting pressure on us (in Canada) to let it be valid, even though it is legal (with controversy over the method, it's a long story, look it up).

[Bold Deceiver]

with respect to BD
The Republicans Will Turn You Into A Fag

Ferno, you may or may not be pleased to know you gave me a huge smile with that.

[Dakatsu]

with respect to BD
The Republicans Will Turn You Into A Fag

Ferno, you may or may not be pleased to know you gave me a huge smile with that.

LOL, it was Zuruck who said that

[Bet51987]

Ironically Bettina is the only one who seems to have a problem with this, and she doesn't hate gays. (No offense, just kinda wierd, I expected a Republican with a Bible in his hand to say the first thing against anything)
------Dakatsu

I support gay rights. Just not to adopt children. Is that wierd?

Bee

[Dakatsu]

Ironically Bettina is the only one who seems to have a problem with this, and she doesn't hate gays. (No offense, just kinda wierd, I expected a Republican with a Bible in his hand to say the first thing against anything)
------Dakatsu

I support gay rights. Just not to adopt children. Is that wierd?

Bee

No, just suprised of all people, I thought a Christian Conservative with a Bible and a Shotgun to say the first thing against any right gays want, rather than an athiest girl. Good you support gay rights, but I thought I was gonna get blasted from the whole Republican party rather than just gays shouldnt adopt from one girl. I can see your issue with gay adoption though, I wouldnt want gay parents for risk of getting beaten to death (unless I wasnt gonna get my ass kicked for being an atheist, fetishist, democrat, girlfriend's slave, AND someone with gay parents, then it would be okay for me).

Basically, to everyone, I am glad that there are no uber lunatics here who want to deny gays rights. I think that although the Iraq War lets say, has ups and downs, the only thing against this is it is "GROSS, EWWW AH!!!!". I am glad even the Republicans are sane at this board (at least more sane than lets say, Pat Robertson.

[Lothar]

Scientifically, sex between a man and a women must be right or you, I, and everyone else would not be here. Any other combination would not have produced the human race so it has to be \"wrong\"

So is sex that doesn't result in pregnancy \"wrong\"?

How do you argue that the ideal heterosexual couple is more effective at raising children than the ideal homosexual couple? I mean, isn't it built in to the definition of \"ideal\" that the homosexual couple would be able to overcome any homosexual-related obstacles concerning raising children?

I didn't say \"take the ideal of each type and compare them\" -- that would imply that there exists a (theoretical) ideal of each type, which is exactly the idea I argued against. There *isn't* a same-sex ideal. Instead, I said to describe the ideal -- and that description will include one man, one woman, and a number of other caveats. \"Take the ideal homosexual parents\" is a logical impossibility, while \"take the ideal heterosexual parents\" is logically possible (but, of course, unrealistic.)

I'm not \"choosing which infeasible ideal... to cling to\"; I'm describing the ideal, which is of course infeasible. We each deviate from that ideal (in different ways), but that doesn't change the nature of the ideal itself.

[Jeff250]

Fair enough--I misconstrued what you were saying. But if I were to describe an ideal childhood as you suggest, I would list characteristics about the childhood itself, like that it would be one that is conducive to the child's happiness, virtuousness, and education. I wouldn't list matters of fact surrounding the childhood, like growing up in America or having heterosexual parents. Even though these things might be effective at accomplishing the ends that I listed, they certainly aren't necessary and outside of the ideal itself. In other words, like how living in America might tend to lead to a better childhood, so having heterosexual parents might tend to lead to a better childhood, but these external facts aren't apart of my actual idea of an ideal childhood, and I'm not sure that it makes sense to throw them in.

And if we do throw in things like having heterosexual parents or living in America as accurate characterizations of an ideal childhood, then what's to stop us from saying that the ideal childhood is one where the child is male or white. Surely it can be effectively argued that these two matters of fact, also outside of the childhood itself, do lend in most cases to having a smoother childhood too, but is that something that we really want to say accurately characterizes an ideal childhood?

[Bet51987]

Scientifically, sex between a man and a women must be right or you, I, and everyone else would not be here. Any other combination would not have produced the human race so it has to be "wrong"

So is sex that doesn't result in pregnancy "wrong"?

Of course not. I was speaking scientifically that the human race long ago proved what worked (right) and didn't (wrong).

And from my earlier quote....

The term "marriage" then, should apply to the combination that is "right" The legal union of a man and women which have the capability of reproducing whether they choose to or not.

Bettina

[Lothar]

if I were to describe an ideal childhood as you suggest

That's not what I suggested. Try again.

What I suggested was describing the ideal situation for raising a child. Not the ideal childhood, which is what you described, but the ideal situation for raising a child.

Even though these things might be effective at accomplishing the ends that I listed...

Which is exactly the point. If you were to pick the ideal situation, it would have certain characteristics, among them "one male parent and one female parent". The list would, of course, also cover such things as schooling, nutrition, health care, etc. In some cases, there's room to argue what exactly would be ideal, but "a mother and a father" is pretty obviously a part of it. There's also room to argue about how far one can stray from the ideal and still have a pretty darn good child-raising environment, and how wise it is to stray from the ideal in various ways if you're raising children. There's also plenty of room to disagree over how much the government should encourage and/or provide parts of that ideal. We can (and most likely have or will) argue until we're blue in the face about how the government should handle education, health care, etc. for children... and we can argue plenty about how strongly the government should encourage parents to vaccinate their kids, not smoke around them, etc. But these are all irrelevant for this thread.

The argument that's relevant to this thread is over how much the government should encourage people to aim toward creating homes with both a mother and a father. I personally think it's none of the government's business -- if we want people to have fewer divorces, better marriages, etc., it's up to us as individuals and couples and churches to encourage them and show them how to do it. It's not up to the government. My wife would argue that, because children are so important to society, the government should put some effort into it.

what's to stop us from saying that the ideal childhood is one where the child is male or white.

From your perspective, there's nothing to stop us from saying "being a white male is part of the ideal childhood". I don't think it actually *is*, but I don't see any reason to say it couldn't possibly be. It has no bearing on this discussion, though.

I'm assuming the child's characteristics are a given -- the child simply is the gender, race, weight, etc. that they are. Then I'm looking at what sort of environment they would be best raised in. (I think the "ideal environment" for a white male is no better than the "ideal environment" for a black female. They may be different environments, but neither one is better or worse.)

The term "marriage" then, should apply to the combination that is "right" The legal union of a man and women which have the capability of reproducing...

So what about people who are too old to have children, or who are known to be sterile? They don't have the capability. Can they still marry?

[Jeff250]

That's not what I suggested. Try again.

What I suggested was describing the ideal situation for raising a child. Not the ideal childhood, which is what you described, but the ideal situation for raising a child.

You're missing my point. The ideal childhood, or childhood "situation" is one conducive to the child's happiness, virtuousness, education, etc. (with some room for tweaking)*. That's the true ideal right there. It doesn't concern secondary characteristics that only statistically tend to improve the childhood situation, like being raised in America or being raised by heterosexual parents. These latter characteristics are only valuable for how they improve the former characteristics, and any sound body would gladly sacrifice the latter for the former.

Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not necessarily against the government promoting heterosexual parenting. I have yet to fall on either side of the issue. But I would only assent to the government doing so via the argument that the childhood situations improved by heterosexual parents would outweigh those that were harmed, only via the argument that heterosexual parenting tends to promote the ideal childhood situation. I wouldn't assent because having heterosexual parents is the ideal childhood situation. Arguing for it because having heterosexual parents is the ideal childhood situation is disingenuous and misleading.

* What I mean is, some might say that the ideal childhood situation is one that is conducive to the child's happiness and that virtuousness and education are only good for how they improve happiness, or that the the ideal childhood situation is one that is conducive to the child's virtuousness and that happiness and education are only good for how they improve virtuousness. But the point is that there is one or more inflexible characteristics that you can attribute to the ideal childhood situation, whereas having heterosexual parents isn't going to be one of these characteristics.

[Bet51987]

The term "marriage" then, should apply to the combination that is "right" The legal union of a man and women which have the capability of reproducing...

So what about people who are too old to have children, or who are known to be sterile? They don't have the capability. Can they still marry?

Your not grasping the meaning of my posts but the anwser is yes. Your scenario still fits my criteria as already explained. If sterile, they can adopt and still be a normal family. If they are too old to legally adopt, then it fits neither scenario.

Bettina

[Will Robinson]

I think it makes perfect sense to wish that all children would grow up in a two-parent-heterosexual-man-wife family. Our culture/society seems to be designed for that scenario and the children seem to recieve the most benefit from growing up in that situation.

Since it's not a perfect world however I'm convinced that government should not mandate any of those conditions for adoption or marriage.
If they did we would end up with a two class society, the Leave it to Beaver class and the Immoral Outsiders class. It would make the basis for a decent movie script but I wouldn't want to live there...

I do wish government had a means by which to encourage that type of family to form without punishing people who don't conform because it would be encouraging something that makes us strong and healthy and if that seems offensive then get over it because life isn't fair!
I wish pop culture and peer pressure promoted the stereotypical husband wife two parent houshold instead of bending over backwards to bash it and celebrate diversity for diversitys sake.

[CUDA]

I think the major point of this whole issue is being missed, this is not about homosexual marriage or the government being in marriage, or even bout getting the government out of the church, which is a whole other issue in it self. this is about deviant sexual behavior and if we allow it or not. we can say that this is between two concenting adults. ok I capitulate on that point, but what about sex with a minor? do we allow it? how about teachers and their students? Justice Ginsberg favors making the age of concent 12. do we make a 12 year old of legal age to have sex with a 40 year old man? because it will happen if Ginsberg gets her way. do we go that far? do we allow older men or women to have sexual relations with children?

Middle School Band Teacher Admits to Sex With Six Students

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202524,00.html

do we allow this kind of behavior? because deep down that is what this issue is about

[Gooberman]

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2796.html

[Zuruck]

Cuda, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS TO ALLOW IT!! That's what this country is supposed to be about. Statutory rape of minors is one thing, but two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex is another. Are you afraid that you're going to walk down the street and there will be two men going at it on the street corner or something?

Why do you feel that you're entitled to tell other people how to enjoy their lives? You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time, hell, I bet even Jesus had an altar boy running around...it's no big deal. Let them be, besides, it leaves plenty of women for us.

[Testiculese]

Wish I was at that school! Female teachers 'taking advantage' of male boys is far better than the other way around.

[Will Robinson]

....this is about deviant sexual behavior and if we allow it or not. we can say that this is between two concenting adults. ok I capitulate on that point, but what about sex with a minor? do we allow it?...

Two different things there I think.

1) Is it devient behavior as in anti-social subversive etc. or, a natural genetic deviation from the norm?

2) As to the age of consent. Why can't the age of consent stay the same as it is and gay couples still get married?

If it's a slippery slope argument you're making it could be applied to many things like we lowered the age for drinking to 18 for beer so it will lead to lowering it to 16....
We raised the speed limit to 70 so it's going to go to 90...

i definitely want to protect and promote the family unit but I just don't see how letting the church be the keeper of the definition and the government recognize the property/visitation/palimony rights of a couple as a seperate thing.

We don't have to allow child abuse, beastiality or polygamy just because we allow gay marriage if the laws forbidding those other things are constitutional and don't rely on the definition of marriage as the method to identify them and outlaw them.

[CUDA]

Cuda, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS TO ALLOW IT!! That's what this country is supposed to be about. Statutory rape of minors is one thing, but two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex is another. Are you afraid that you're going to walk down the street and there will be two men going at it on the street corner or something?

Why do you feel that you're entitled to tell other people how to enjoy their lives? You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time, hell, I bet even Jesus had an altar boy running around...it's no big deal. Let them be, besides, it leaves plenty of women for us.

HEH the whole point went right over your head, Earth to Zurich try RE- READING my post maybe it will sink in the second time

[Zuruck]

Nah Cuda, you seem to think that homosexual activity is some sort of demonic activity and that society should forbid it, or at least not encourage it. I'm telling you that it's none of your business and that you have no right to tell other people what they should do. You just simply have no right.

[Duper]

Nah Cuda, you seem to think that homosexual activity is some sort of demonic activity and that society should forbid it, or at least not encourage it. I'm telling you that it's none of your business and that you have no right to tell other people what they should do. You just simply have no right.

Wow zuruck.. you just nullifid our Entire judicial system.

The Freedom we enjoy in the country is not about letting anyone do whatever they want. That is foolishness.

You need a serious reality check there dude.

You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time, ...

btw, this is Horrible rational for setting a social precedence.

[CUDA]

Nah Cuda, you seem to think that homosexual activity is some sort of demonic activity and that society should forbid it, or at least not encourage it. I'm telling you that it's none of your business and that you have no right to tell other people what they should do. You just simply have no right.

well either your naieve or just plain stupid. first off quote me where I either said or even implied that homosexuality was some sort of demonic behavior. second "society" regulates morality every day, they tell people what they can and cannot do every day, just for your personal information 18 states have sodomy laws on the books that make homosexual acts AGAINST THE LAW. you cannot pick and chose which laws you want to obey and which ones you dont. you would have an anarchist state on your hands, there would be no law and order. it is not up to you to deceide which laws to enforce either. as far as my rights I have EVERY right and responsability to tell people what to do if it is against the law. now back to my point since you STILL SEEMED TO HAVE MISSED IT. will you allow a 40 year old man to have sexual relations with a 12 year old girl if Justice Ginsberg has her way and changes the age of concent? will you allow legal pedophilia? will you allow legal incest? will you allow legal polygamy?

[Dakatsu]

Nah Cuda, you seem to think that homosexual activity is some sort of demonic activity and that society should forbid it, or at least not encourage it. I'm telling you that it's none of your business and that you have no right to tell other people what they should do. You just simply have no right.

well either your naieve or just plain stupid. first off quote me where I either said or even implied that homosexuality was some sort of demonic behavior. second "society" regulates morality every day, they tell people what they can and cannot do every day, just for your personal information 18 states have sodomy laws on the books that make homosexual acts AGAINST THE LAW. you cannot pick and chose which laws you want to obey and which ones you dont. you would have an anarchist state on your hands, there would be no law and order. it is not up to you to deceide which laws to enforce either. as far as my rights I have EVERY right and responsability to tell people what to do if it is against the law. now back to my point since you STILL SEEMED TO HAVE MISSED IT. will you allow a 40 year old man to have sexual relations with a 12 year old girl if Justice Ginsberg has her way and changes the age of concent? will you allow legal pedophilia? will you allow legal incest? will you allow legal polygamy?

Did I miss something here, I thought this was about gays and their marriage rights or legal proterty contracts, how did this get to a discussion about age of consent laws?

[Kilarin]

we can say that this is between two concenting adults. ok I capitulate on that point, but what about sex with a minor?

Sex with a minor is illegal, and will remain so (I hope). I really think this issue is strictly about consenting adults.

We've already HAD a long topic on how strongly I believe in Monogamy. The question is, should I enforce those views on others? And the answer is, as long as all of the parties involved are consenting adults, absolutely NOT. Why? Because then morality becomes a popularity poll. I'll attempt to persuade you to my point of view, but I won't enforce it. My veiw is already in the minority, and if we allow these things to be enforced by law, then someday someone will enforce a morality I don't agree with upon me.

I am opposed to enforcing rules about morality so that I can better defend and uphold what I consider to be moral.

The only morality that government should be involved with is the core "do not harm anyone". This morality postulate has one exception, and two corollaries.
The exception is that you may harm someone in order to stop them from harming an innocent.
The corollaries are that violating property rights is harm, and so is breaking your agreements.

Go anywhere beyond that, and you get into trouble.

just for your personal information 18 states have sodomy laws on the books that make homosexual acts AGAINST THE LAW.

Do you realize that many of those laws also outlaw oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples? This is why this kind of morality should NEVER be put into law. The government has absolutely NO legitimate interested in exactly how a man and a wife decide to make love, just so long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses.

you cannot pick and chose which laws you want to obey and which ones you dont. you would have an anarchist state on your hands

I can and I do. So did Peter and the other apostles.

We don't have to allow child abuse, beastiality or polygamy just because we allow gay marriage

Actually, I think Polygamy will probably follow. Its a matter of consenting adults. Actually, we already practice polygamy in this country, we just do it by chaining marriages together, or by having several unmarried relationships going at once. I do not approve a polygamy, and that is a very MILD way of putting it, but as long as all parties are above the age of consent, this is an issue that the government has no right to mess with.

[Will Robinson]

My gut tells me polygamy would be bad for us. Along the same lines as why single parent housholds produce more criminals than two parent housholds. It's not a scientific fact I can quote it's just instinct that makes me believe that.
I don't have the same gut reaction to letting the Holy Church of Lesbo's pronounce a union of two women to be a marriage.

[Dakatsu]

Okay, I found out about something called a civil union, its like a marriage, except without the religious part. It is only active in three states, and doesnt have all the rights of married couples. How about letting ALL states have this, with all the rights as married couples. If churches want to marry gays, okay, but if not, here is a civil union. Easy!

[Testiculese]

Dak, back when our Constitution was valid, there was such a thing as Common Law Marriage, which was defined as two people living together, sharing their lives, for x number of years were considered as married as those who went to a church.

[Muffalicious]

I know I'm kind of late in the game here, but I saw you guys were having so much fun.

Here is my 2 cents.....
Through my life I have see many relationships, and I have found majority of gay relationships have been the most loving and caring. I thought \"God\" wanted us to love one another, we should take a tip from them. I have, and I have found the greatest love of all time, my best friend.

They should have the right to legally state there love for each other.

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

[Kilarin]

My gut tells me polygamy would be bad for us. Along the same lines as why single parent housholds produce more criminals than two parent housholds. It's not a scientific fact I can quote it's just instinct that makes me believe that.

I agree. I believe that polygamy would be very bad for the family. Probably NOT as bad as the current habit of breaking up most families with a divorce, but still very bad.

BUT, I can point you to liberals who say that raising a child Christian is child abuse and should be punished by law. Others who say that NOT exposing your child to homosexuality is dooming them to be unfulfilled and unhappy adults. And some who believe that any form of discipline will warp and destroy a childs ability to get along with others.

These people (and many others) ALSO have a gut feeling and instinct about what is best for the family. Their feelings just happen to be opposite of mine. I believe that my stance is backed up by reason and scientific studies, but they also believe their view is reasonable and have studies to back it up.

Right now the conservatives have more voting power in this country, but by a very narrow margin. But those things never last. Some day in the future (probably the near future), the liberals will have more power. In order to PROTECT our values, we must keep the government from attempting to enforce them. By allowing this nun to have as many consenting wives as he can get, I defend my right to raise my OWN children in the manner I believe to be right.

ok I'm done rip away

No rips from me. I would rather see a child being raised in a loving home with homosexual parents, or even polygamous parents, or just a guy and a girl shacking up permanently, than in an orphanage or being passed from one set of foster parents to another.

Just about ANY non-abusive family is better than none.

[Dakatsu]

No rips from me. I would rather see a child being raised in a loving home with homosexual parents, or even polygamous parents, or just a guy and a girl shacking up permanently, than in an orphanage or being passed from one set of foster parents to another.

Just about ANY non-abusive family is better than none.

True, that is a very good point, we have so many kids in orphanariums, any family would be better than none.

[Bet51987]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.

Bettina

[Muffalicious]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.

Bettina

What does a persons sexual prefrence have to with raising children?

Do you have any friends that are "gay or lesbian"?

[Bet51987]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.

Bettina

What does a persons sexual prefrence have to with raising children?

Do you have any friends that are "gay or lesbian"?

Nobody I know is gay or lesbian but I know first hand how cruel kids can be. It doesn't matter how good the gay parents are. They can be loving, kind and care about their adopted childs welfare and I know that. But its not the point.

When there is an open house at school, or some other activity, and a 12 year old girl comes in with two men who she calls mom and dad she will be ridiculed by her peers. I don't know the physcological impact it will have on her, but she will have few friends.

I have to stop talking about this because I'm at the point where my wisdom ends so I have to bow to others with more experience in life matters.

Again... no offense. We both want the child to have a good home. I just want it to be a normal one.

Bee

[Muffalicious]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.

Bettina

What does a persons sexual prefrence have to with raising children?

Do you have any friends that are "gay or lesbian"?

Nobody I know is gay or lesbian but I know first hand how cruel kids can be. It doesn't matter how good the gay parents are. They can be loving, kind and care about their adopted childs welfare and I know that. But its not the point.

When there is an open house at school, or some other activity, and a 12 year old girl comes in with two men who she calls mom and dad she will be ridiculed by her peers. I don't know the physcological impact it will have on her, but she will have few friends.

I have to stop talking about this because I'm at the point where my wisdom ends so I have to bow to others with more experience in life matters.

Again... no offense. We both want the child to have a good home. I just want it to be a normal one.

Bee

What I see is that people like you would be the ones ridiculing that child. Like you said kids are cruel and it doesn't matter if she would be wearing last seasons shoes or if she studied too hard and didn't talk enough.

I think you should really know before you judge.

[Bet51987]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.

Bettina

What does a persons sexual prefrence have to with raising children?

Do you have any friends that are "gay or lesbian"?

Nobody I know is gay or lesbian but I know first hand how cruel kids can be. It doesn't matter how good the gay parents are. They can be loving, kind and care about their adopted childs welfare and I know that. But its not the point.

When there is an open house at school, or some other activity, and a 12 year old girl comes in with two men who she calls mom and dad she will be ridiculed by her peers. I don't know the physcological impact it will have on her, but she will have few friends.

I have to stop talking about this because I'm at the point where my wisdom ends so I have to bow to others with more experience in life matters.

Again... no offense. We both want the child to have a good home. I just want it to be a normal one.

Bee

What I see is that people like you would be the ones ridiculing that child. Like you said kids are cruel and it doesn't matter if she would be wearing last seasons shoes or if she studied too hard and didn't talk enough.

I think you should really know before you judge.

First paragraph is wrong. I'm not like that and never would be.

Second paragraph... I know a little.

My entire family consists of me and my dad. When I was much younger I was teased by a few for not having a mother and because of it I didn't talk very much... almost zero. I placed myself in a shell, studied a lot, blamed my dad, me, and had few friends. The teasing was effective because I was weak. I won't tell you how I hid my first period from my dad because he wasn't female.

So,I CAN imagine the ridicule of two dads.

Its not normal.

Bee

[Dakatsu]

Bettina has a point, I get my ass kicked because I am an atheist alone. I know a gay kid would be killed most likely.

But then it is called homeschooling, school your own kids. Easy!

[Muffalicious]

Oh, and, when it comes down to gays being able to adopt children, I think they should. We have tooo many homeless children that need loving homes.

ok I'm done rip away

Ok, I will. No offense but your dead wrong. Every child belongs in a normal home for the reasons I gave even if they have to wait to get one and the waiting list isn't very long. Gays and Lesbians are not normal.


Bettina

What does a persons sexual prefrence have to with raising children?

Do you have any friends that are "gay or lesbian"?

Nobody I know is gay or lesbian but I know first hand how cruel kids can be. It doesn't matter how good the gay parents are. They can be loving, kind and care about their adopted childs welfare and I know that. But its not the point.

When there is an open house at school, or some other activity, and a 12 year old girl comes in with two men who she calls mom and dad she will be ridiculed by her peers. I don't know the physcological impact it will have on her, but she will have few friends.

I have to stop talking about this because I'm at the point where my wisdom ends so I have to bow to others with more experience in life matters.

Again... no offense. We both want the child to have a good home. I just want it to be a normal one.

Bee

What I see is that people like you would be the ones ridiculing that child. Like you said kids are cruel and it doesn't matter if she would be wearing last seasons shoes or if she studied too hard and didn't talk enough.

I think you should really know before you judge.

First paragraph is wrong. I'm not like that and never would be.

Second paragraph... I know a little.

My entire family consists of me and my dad. When I was much younger I was teased by a few for not having a mother and because of it I didn't talk very much... almost zero. I placed myself in a shell, studied a lot, blamed my dad, me, and had few friends. The teasing was effective because I was weak. I won't tell you how I hid my first period from my dad because he wasn't female.

So,I CAN imagine the ridicule of two dads.

Its not normal.

Bee

Listen, I understand to.
ALL of us has a story. I lived with a violent, drunk father until I was 7, and my mother, brother and I had to sneak out of the house to run away from him.
I don't need to go into full detail beacuse my story is wayyyyyyyy to long.

There is no such thing as normal so get over it. I am greatfull for what I have no matter if some may say I was dealt the wrong cards.

Bee, I'm not getting on you. I guess I feel for a lot of my friends that are gay. Most of them you would never know they were, because they are people just like you and me.

[Lothar]

The ideal childhood, or childhood "situation" is one conducive to the child's happiness, virtuousness, education, etc.

I agree... but... the ideal situation for any child has some properties in common. One of those properties is that the child has a mother and a father. That's part of the ideal -- it's REQUIRED to have the best theoretically possible situation in terms of the child's happiness, virtuousness, education, etc. Without both a mother and a father, you don't have the best theoretically possible situation. It's not disingenious or misleading, it's simply true.

Now, each and every family deviates from the ideal in some ways. None of us can have the best theoretically possible situation, we can only have the best-we-can-reach-from-where-we-are situation. And in some situations, the best you can reach is a single parent or a loving pair of same-sex parents or even a foster home. The argument you suggested ("heterosexual parenting tends to promote the ideal childhood situation") isn't valid because the ideal is never reached, but a slight modification ("encouraging people to form stable mother-and-father families tends to promote better childhood situations") is both good and true. Encouraging more mother-and-father families is a REALLY good thing, and we should do a whole lot more of it. The way my wife and I differ is that she thinks government should continue to define marriage as it currently does in order to promote mother-and-father families, while I think the government should drop the issue and the encouragement should come from individuals.

Frankly, I think the sooner the government gets out of the business, the more effective individuals will be at encouraging people to form good relationships. As long as the government recognizes hollywood "marriages" as being equal to mine, it makes it hard for people to see what marriage really can and should be like.

[Muffalicious]

The ideal childhood, or childhood "situation" is one conducive to the child's happiness, virtuousness, education, etc.

I agree... but... the ideal situation for any child has some properties in common. One of those properties is that the child has a mother and a father. That's part of the ideal -- it's REQUIRED to have the best theoretically possible situation in terms of the child's happiness, virtuousness, education, etc. Without both a mother and a father, you don't have the best theoretically possible situation. It's not disingenious or misleading, it's simply true.

Now, each and every family deviates from the ideal in some ways. None of us can have the best theoretically possible situation, we can only have the best-we-can-reach-from-where-we-are situation. And in some situations, the best you can reach is a single parent or a loving pair of same-sex parents or even a foster home. The argument you suggested ("heterosexual parenting tends to promote the ideal childhood situation") isn't valid because the ideal is never reached, but a slight modification ("encouraging people to form stable mother-and-father families tends to promote better childhood situations") is both good and true. Encouraging more mother-and-father families is a REALLY good thing, and we should do a whole lot more of it. The way my wife and I differ is that she thinks government should continue to define marriage as it currently does in order to promote mother-and-father families, while I think the government should drop the issue and the encouragement should come from individuals.

Frankly, I think the sooner the government gets out of the business, the more effective individuals will be at encouraging people to form good relationships. As long as the government recognizes hollywood "marriages" as being equal to mine, it makes it hard for people to see what marriage really can and should be like.

Well said

[Duper]

Frankly, I think the sooner the government gets out of the business, the more effective individuals will be at encouraging people to form good relationships. As long as the government recognizes hollywood "marriages" as being equal to mine, it makes it hard for people to see what marriage really can and should be like.

I just realized something. "The government" isn't entirely a correct title. The government, as it is comprised of US citizens and is basically controlled and influcenced by us, the general populace, is a representation of who we are as a people. We have control. (regardless of whether or not we choose to utilize that control) The laws that are made reflect who we are as a people, as a society, as a civilization.

THIS is why morality is tied to politics or rather law making. How are we going to define ourselves? Any historian worth his salt will tell you that any great civilization that died, did so from the inside first. They tossed aside anything moral and called it foolish. This is a trend that has repeated itself numerous, if not nearly countless times, over the last 3 millenia. Before the "era of enlightenment" - the mid to late 1800's. Church and morality was commonly exercised together when debting law and maters of state. It is a dangerous thing to separate ourselves from government. If there truely is a rift, then it needs to be bridges and mended.