Kookaburra said this in post #196 : This is one of the passages I'm referring to. If we warn you that you're in sin, how can it be judging?
Because pertaining to this particular issue, you're JUDGING based on religious belief, not on LEGAL human right in regard to equality.
This is also why when the issues of the laws and ordinances of the US and the individual states come up, I will not go against God and vote for anything that violates God's word.
Kooka, again, no one is asking you to vote any particular way. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to vote this way or that. No one is threatening you. There are people here who are arguming that they believe that if the U.S. government prides itself on the equal rights of all people, that it should hold true to those words.
I know what a lot of people are trying to get passed is going to get our country in trouble.
What kind of trouble? The kind that we've already been in since our inception? Do you think the purpose behind the 9/11 attacks was because of the American's acceptance of gays? Do you think that the world will come to an end because of gay marriage?
You think it's not going to matter because you reject the Bible.
No...you think that because not all of us ACCEPT, (not REJECT my dear) YOUR interpretation of the bible, that it's going to matter.
I'm not trying to violate anyone's rights. I'm trying to fight for a country to be right with God so we don't suffer His wrath.
See, that right there is a contradiction in terms. You don't think that you're violating anyone's rights, at least you're trying to convince yourself and everyone else that you're not... but when you try to force feed your religious beliefs into to the structure of the goverment; "I'm trying to fight for a country to be right with God" , you're in essence violating the rights of people who do not believe in your definition of God. If you want all people to believe in your idea of God, than you have one of two options...1. Purchase land in an area of the world where no laws can impeed on your beliefs. 2. Move to a land where the religious beliefs and ideals are a FORCED way of life. Think: Iraq, PRE-Saddam's fall, Afghanistan PRE-Taliban dismantle & the Colonial U.S. during the Salem Witch trials.
Dekka00 said this in post #202 : ---FOR THE RECORD---
Iraq was a secular government run by a madman, not religious.
hey, just a stone's throw from our government
---and now back to the topic---
not really Dekka....the laws of Iraq, Iran, Saudi, etc...have all their laws and ways of life based on religious ideals as set in the Shari'a and the Quran...
The government in Iraq was run by a madman, but the ways of life are based (and forced) on strictly religion.
so I guess you are sort of saying that Europe and North America are/were the same way only with the Christian Bible??
well, I believe in seperation of church and state (ie, Pastor Hammond and his clergy will not make the laws of the town, a seperate council elected from the people will do that) but not seperation of religion and state. People must be allowed to act on their beliefs (Christian or otherwise).
Dekka00 said this in post #205 : People must be allowed to act on their beliefs (Christian or otherwise).
In what manner are you speaking of? America is full of diversity religiously speaking. This could cause alot of problems.
Can you tell me what you mean by church and state and religion and state? I see no difference but maybe you can explain.
I dont see how you can allow Christians to state how gay marriage shouldnt be allowed....that would be pressing their beliefs on the rest of the country (or on those who arent Christian). Its not right...
The government should not have religious tendencies as a whole...individually maybe, but as a whole, no. What right is it that a Jewish member of our government has to live under Christian rules?
Anyway....could you clarify on what you were saying?
seperation of church and state: Back in the day the government/church of England was one institution. To have a different religion was to go against the government. This was one of the reasons America even exists. The Puritans were persecuted for their beliefs, so they came to America seeking freedom. They made sure that other religions would not be persecuted simply for believing other things by instilling freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.
This means Pentecostal doctrine will not become law.
This means Catholic doctrine will not become law.
This means Sunni Muslim doctrine will not become law.
This means Darwinist Atheist doctrine will not become law.
It does not mean, however, that Pentecostals, Catholics, Muslims, or Darwinists cannot run for government or base their actions on what they believe.
seperation of religion and state: religion is a personal matter. It's what a person believes. Atheism, whether atheists will admit it or not, is a religion. It doesn't believe in the sacred or morality as much, so it drops a lot of the roles that most religions fill, but it still fills the part of religion. But to ask somebody to not act on their beliefs is to violate their freedom of religion.
Now, you say that non-Christians should not have to live under Christian rules. Well, okay. I'd agree with you. But Christians should not have to live under non-Christian rules either.
Although, I have to admit having homosexual marriages be legal is not forcing Christians to do anything. But if someone feels compelled to fight it, you can't ask them not to. It violates their rights.
I also believe non-Christians should not have to live under our rules, but I don't see anyone forcing them to read the Bible, or forcing them to go to church, or filing lawsuits against them because they didn't pray or go to church, etc.
HOWEVER;
I do see them taking us to court because we have Bibles (never mind they are in our desks or in our lockers or in a place where they do not have to read them)
I do see them suing the heck out of us because we didn't support their lifestyles. Or suing us because didn't marry them. Yes, this is happening. A church is about to be sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple.
So tell me how this is not forcing Christians to accept non-Christian rules? If we don't accept, we get sued.
The ACLU is a big pusher to force Christians to abide by their way of life or beliefs.
If the non-Christians don't want to live under our rules, why do they want us to be subjected to theirs? I don't believe the same-sex marriage rights are going to stop at just getting that right. I believe they are also going to start filing suits for everyone who refuses to support their lifestyle. That is, if I'm a pastor and will not marry them, you can bet someone is going to take me to court. The laws will rule in their favor because if it's legally passed for them to be married, then the court will interfere with the rights of the Christians and force them to marry, or be in contempt of court and end up in jail.
So how is this for forcing Christians to live under non-Christian rules?
And yet like I said... no one is suing them because they don't read the Bible.
isn't marriage something of a religious ritual anyway?
maybe we should take anything having to do with marriage out of the law, no tax breaks, seperate bank accounts etc. etc. etc. and move forward from there...
that way only people who actually want to get married will get married. They will stay together not out of fear of the law or the pain in the neck it will be to divorce, but out of love for each other.
Dekka00 said this in post #207 : [u]seperation of religion and state: religion is a personal matter. It's what a person believes. Atheism, whether atheists will admit it or not, is a religion. It doesn't believe in the sacred or morality as much, so it drops a lot of the roles that most religions fill, but it still fills the part of religion. But to ask somebody to not act on their beliefs is to violate their freedom of religion.
Now, you say that non-Christians should not have to live under Christian rules. Well, okay. I'd agree with you. But Christians should not have to live under non-Christian rules either.
Although, I have to admit having homosexual marriages be legal is not forcing Christians to do anything. But if someone feels compelled to fight it, you can't ask them not to. It violates their rights.
Okay...I see whate you are saying...but in your last paragraph here...sure people have the absolute right to fight for what they believe in...but like you said gay marriage isnt forcing them into gay marriage. I think Christians should spend their time to right the church and their beliefs before pushing them on the entire country...especially when its nothing but one massive contradiction after another.
quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #209 : isn't marriage something of a religious ritual anyway?
maybe we should take anything having to do with marriage out of the law, no tax breaks, seperate bank accounts etc. etc. etc. and move forward from there...
that way only people who actually want to get married will get married. They will stay together not out of fear of the law or the pain in the neck it will be to divorce, but out of love for each other.
Sure take away those things..and it still comes down to people having equal rights...material things dont change that. And marriage isnt just a Christian thing....other religions accept gay marriage...but many gay people are Christian...its just that they see God as a person who accepts others...thats who God is...Christians dont have that right to judge other people....not until they finish judgment among themselves.
mystic said this in post #203 : The government in Iraq was run by a madman, but the ways of life are based (and forced) on strictly religion.
Tell that to Uday.
quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #207 : Now, you say that non-Christians should not have to live under Christian rules. Well, okay. I'd agree with you. But Christians should not have to live under non-Christian rules either.
I think that's the point - religious doctrine should not be made law. If same-sex marriages are allowed, that does not force people to find same-sex spouses. If same-sex marriages are forbidden, that would be preventing certain people from enjoying the same rights as others. That would be discriminating against them.
I have just read through our entire thread again. I also did some research on the net as well. I was looking for the reasons against gay marriage.
Although we have discussed many things in this thread and brought up many points. No one has posted what the damage would be should same-sex couples be allowed to be married.
The California family something-or-another institute/organization against gay marriage seems to be touting the irreperable harm to society line. Yet they haven't stated what that is. And many other anti-gay marriage groups also have not shown what horrible things will actually happen if same-sex marriage is legal everywhere in America.
All I am seeing and hearing is how this will be the beginning of the downfall of our society (--yeah, right. Like it's so perfect now). And the supposed moral issue, or the procreation issue, or god this, the bible that. So much fear and dislike.
A number of us have the opinion that there is nothing wrong with it. And a number of people post to the contrary. But no one has brought up any points that were not based on fear or discrimination.
My point is, no one has ever posted a valid reason against same-sex marriage.
Outsider... what I wonder is this: Same-sex couples are still in existance whether we get marriages approved. It won't change anything to the eye. It will change some effects... and how that will HARM those opposed has YET to be shown/proved/etc...
That true outsider. I reread the thread myself yesterday and found no reason either. With the exception of what you said about the begining of the downfall of our society and that the Bible says it's wrong. Well, if the only valid arguement is that the Bible says it's wrong than I ask what happened to seperation of Church and State.
(02-24) 08:01 PST WASHINGTON
President Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Tuesday, saying he wants to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."
Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural and moral roots, Bush said, urging Congress to approve such an amendment.
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in advance of Bush's announcement that the president wanted to end "growing confusion" that has arisen from court decisions in Massachusetts, and San Francisco's permitting more than 3,000 same sex unions.
"The president believes it is important to have clarity," he said. "There is widespread support in this country for protecting and defending the sanctity of marriage."
McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., "meets his principles" in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women.
But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.
Bush decided to take action partly because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. That decision could result in gay weddings there as early as May, McClellan said. "We're two months away," he said.
McClellan said 38 states have passed laws protecting the "sanctity of marriage and the president will call on Congress to move quickly to pass legislation that can then be sent to the states for ratification.
"We need to act now," he said. "The constitutional process will take time."
With the announcement, Bush is wading into a volatile social issue. The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and couples from more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,200 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."
At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.
Musgrave's proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Conservatives have been saying for a month that the White House had quietly assured them that Bush would take the step he was announcing on Tuesday.
Last week, he met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.
Bush has indicated his support for a constitutional amendment in the past, including in a closed-door meeting with Republican lawmakers last month. At that session, according to one official in attendance, the president singled out Musgrave's proposal as one he could support, but did not endorse it.
The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says:
"Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Bush's comment that the states should be left free to "define other arrangements" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.
The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.
A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.
On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.
Just as a side note, the announcement which most knew was coming, is at this point being spun with regard to political rather than social ramifications.
If that article belongs somewhere other than here, please let me know. I posted here as info as it speaks to the topic of and the discussion in this thread.
BTW, I've been reading this thread and have really learned a lot. Thank you.
My problem with gay marriages is that marriage is the glue of the family (and since family is the basic unit of society, that makes it the glue of society too). I don't like the idea of kids being raised by two mothers or two fathers any more than I like the idea of a kid being raised by only a mother or a father.
Dekka00 said this in post #218 : My problem with gay marriages is that marriage is the glue of the family (and since family is the basic unit of society, that makes it the glue of society too). I don't like the idea of kids being raised by two mothers or two fathers any more than I like the idea of a kid being raised by only a mother or a father.
I don't care if two men, two women or man and women (same color or different color) have a child(ren) as long as it's in a loving, drug-free environment. If individuals are committed to each other they set a wonderful example to their kid(s), friends, extended family and society.
KJ said this in post #217 : I'm glad that you're learning a lot. I appreciate people who can at least look at all the sides of this issue.
What I think many miss when they listen to debates by personalities and politicians, or read and listen to opinions that have been screened by editors and talk show producers, is that we are talking about real people here.
There is a tendency to dismiss it as a political 'issue' or an activist 'cause' and it's disassociated from human beings with real feelings.
You know, people with hopes and dreams just like the person you see in the mirror every day.
Dekka00 said this in post #218 : My problem with gay marriages is that marriage is the glue of the family (and since family is the basic unit of society, that makes it the glue of society too). I don't like the idea of kids being raised by two mothers or two fathers any more than I like the idea of a kid being raised by only a mother or a father.
What's wrong with having a child raised by 2 mothers or 2 fathers or by single parents? Does it matter who a child is raised by as long as it is healty and well taken care of and loved? So are you trying to tell me that kids raised in a traditional two parent home are better off than my daughter, simply due to the fact that it is a "tradition" family.
Nymphadora said this in post #222 :
What's wrong with having a child raised by 2 mothers or 2 fathers or by single parents? Does it matter who a child is raised by as long as it is healty and well taken care of and loved? So are you trying to tell me that kids raised in a traditional two parent home are better off than my daughter, simply due to the fact that it is a "tradition" family.
if the two parents are good parents, yes.
Speaking from experience, I feel better off raised by my mother alone than by my idiot of a father. But I still feel like I was missing something not having a father around.
I absolutely, 100%, disagree with you, Dekka. But, that's the great thing about being an individual... we are allowed the freedom of thought and opinion.
KJ said this in post #221 : That's right, obaf. I'm one of those people.. I'm not a statistic.
I'm a human being, with real feelings and emotions.
Exactly ! Good peeps too
I think that if all were given an opportunity to "see" from human, personal and impassioned perspectives such as those voiced here, tunnel-vision would be reduced.
Well our leerless fleeder is up to his cartoon antics again. This was expected, and there will be more nonsense from him on this issue. I watched the news today and many people are reporting that a US Constitutional amendment would be nothing more than passing discrimination into law. Besides amending the US Constitution is a huge process that could take years. This will not happen in 30 days.
Thanks for all of the kind words OBAF. It is nice to see someone come to this issue with the intention to understand.
Dekka, I understand your perspective on family, but I don't understand how marriage is the glue part. That is confusing to me. Personally I believe that Love is the most important part of a family. And I had a Dad around most of my life, you didn't miss out on much.
Well I am hoping to see what happens with SF. I cannot wait to hear all of the lame excuses that the opponents to same-sex marriage have. Sometime in March it will be all over the news.
And could someone let arnold know that his version of a governor is not his best acting role?
All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.
Other key findings include:
There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.
Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely to successfully support a child's development as those with heterosexual parents.
Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.
There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.
The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.
Source: American Psychological Association, District of Columbia, 1995; Child Welfare League of America,
mystic said this in post #229 : Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.
This is so true. Personally I believe it all comes down to love.
I have to agree with Mystic & Outsider, I think the most important componant of a marriage is love and devotion rather than what sex the marrying couple are.
There are so many married couples today who are miserable in their relationship and families. Their children then grow up to get into equally if not worse disfunctional relationships. Which just creates generations of screwed up people who can't function in a healthy relationship.
If a couple can communicate well with each other, love each other, share their lives and their love, then their children will grow up to be well adjusted individuals. It doesn't matter what sex the couple is. If it's an environment full of love, communication and understanding, children in an environment will thrive.
No your right outsider. Your talking about how wrong it is that children grow up in a single parent home and yet you say hey my mom raised me and that's betther than being raised by my idiot father.
mystic said this in post #229 : RESEARCH OVERVIEW OF
LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTING
All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.
Other key findings include:
There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.
Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely to successfully support a child's development as those with heterosexual parents.
Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.
There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.
The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.
Source: American Psychological Association, District of Columbia, 1995; Child Welfare League of America,
There is no question that a gay man can be a good father or a gay woman can be a good mother. However, a fathers' role in a child's life or a mothers' role can never be duplicated by the opposite sex. Period. A woman has no idea what emotions flow through a man just like a man has no clue about a woman. Yes a man can love his daughter as much as anyone but he can never explain to her how a menstrual cramp feels, he doesn't know why she likes make-up so much, can't understand why she has to change her clothes so often, he can't relate to the flow of emotions fueled by constant hormone changes of a female body. And there are a slew of situations that arise daily in a boys life that a woman will never be able to fully grasp. I have watched my sisters' struggles with their boys. The daughter has fully adjusted and moved on to college but the boy is a high school drop-out. My sisters' frustration has been obvious for years.Plus there is no study that will convince me that children do not suffer "from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents". I know kids and they are cruel. Of course kids will be picked on for having Gay parents. I think any one honest has to agree with that. Just piping in..carry on.
There is no question that a gay man can be a good father or a gay woman can be a good mother. However, a fathers' role in a child's life or a mothers' role can never be duplicated by the opposite sex. Period. A woman has no idea what emotions flow through a man just like a man has no clue about a woman. Yes a man can love his daughter as much as anyone but he can never explain to her how a menstrual cramp feels, he doesn't know why she likes make-up so much, can't understand why she has to change her clothes so often, he can't relate to the flow of emotions fueled by constant hormone changes of a female body. And there are a slew of situations that arise daily in a boys life that a woman will never be able to fully grasp. I have watched my sisters' struggles with their boys. The daughter has fully adjusted and moved on to college but the boy is a high school drop-out. My sisters' frustration has been obvious for years.Plus there is no study that will convince me that children do not suffer "from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents". I know kids and they are cruel. Of course kids will be picked on for having Gay parents. I think any one honest has to agree with that. Just piping in..carry on.
Thanks for tossing in your 10 bucks Devil, those are all very valid points.
I guess the important thing for any child who is lacking a male or female parent (whether it be in a single parent situation or two parents of the same sex) is that the child have a positive male or female role model in their life. (A grandparent, Aunt, Uncle, older sibling, etc.)
And you're right about the kid getting picked on for having parents of the same sex, but childhood is a cruel right of passage, all kids get picked on and singled out, regardless of their parental unit situation. It's just a fact of life that bullying kids are an evil that all people have to deal with at some point in their childhood. But if we teach kids today that it's ok that susie has two mommy's or two daddy's, we'll help reduce that childhood harrassing, even though we can't stop it completely.
Very good response, chel. That's so true that if you have a single parent, gay or lesbian parents, divorced parents, etc... you can have people in your life that can be those great example's... give them them the view from the opposite sex... someone that they can trust.
You know... straight married couples choose godparents for their child(ren). Those are important roles to play in a childs life. Grandparents, aunts and uncles, close friends, cousins, etc... can all be there, to give the child someone to talk to about things that they need to hear from another person who has experienced it.
There is no question that a gay man can be a good father or a gay woman can be a good mother. However, a fathers' role in a child's life or a mothers' role can never be duplicated by the opposite sex. Period. A woman has no idea what emotions flow through a man just like a man has no clue about a woman. Yes a man can love his daughter as much as anyone but he can never explain to her how a menstrual cramp feels, he doesn't know why she likes make-up so much, can't understand why she has to change her clothes so often, he can't relate to the flow of emotions fueled by constant hormone changes of a female body. And there are a slew of situations that arise daily in a boys life that a woman will never be able to fully grasp. I have watched my sisters' struggles with their boys. The daughter has fully adjusted and moved on to college but the boy is a high school drop-out. My sisters' frustration has been obvious for years.Plus there is no study that will convince me that children do not suffer "from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents". I know kids and they are cruel. Of course kids will be picked on for having Gay parents. I think any one honest has to agree with that. Just piping in..carry on.
Well.....I think there are exceptions to that....
In my case...it was my father who I could go to to talk about my female issues. My mom and I werent all that close when I was younger....so I counted on my dad, who talked to me about my period, guys I dated, etc. If it wasnt for my dad, I wouldnt have had any parent to talk to. Not that my mom was a bad person...she just didnt talk to me about things like that.
My parents divorced when I was nine....and they both remarried....but it was my dad who I counted on...
I know it sounds like the oddest thing....but my dad was my savior when I was a teen.
now I think back and I look to alot of football players and some guys that only had their mother to raise them....I have heard many stories from football players that say it was their mother that got them to where they are, and their father wasnt around for them at all because they had left or whatever.
Women can raise boys who turn out great.
men can raise daughters who turn out great.
Its not a matter of "how can I teach her about makeup?" and "how can I teach him about football?"
First off most girls learn about makeup from their friends..at least thats where I learned about it.
Anyhow...as valid as you think your statement is...the fact remains that some fathers are raising their daughter because the woman up and left or died, and vice versa...the father left or died and left a woman to raise sons. It happens and these children turn out fine.
I never saw my dad talking to me, and my mother not....a flaw....my dad and I are very close because of our relationship when I was a teen..
I think my point still remains....that gay parents are no different from heterosexual parents.
Harrassment? well...I dont know....I guess that could be a factor, and Im sure it is in some cases....but from what I have read and seen, these kids grow up very happy and healthy.....
as the research showed: not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.
You make valid points mystic. I was kinda saying that a poll like that is kinda kooky. How do you poll that? If a child hears ridicule ONE time about their parents sexuality , he/she is disadvantaged in my opinion. I didn't hear that growing up so I don't know the feeling the child must encounter, but it has to be considered a disadvantage, right?
I understand that there are exceptions to the rule but in general I believe my post was accurate. Mystic, what if you didn't have your Dad to turn to? What if the complete polar opposite of your other parental unit wasn't there? What if you had 2 of your Moms? Who would you have turned to?
Having said this; I do see my Friend with his partner and they couldn't be further apart on the polar scale. One is, as I've mentioned in other posts, a man's man. Fast cars, sports, working out etc. The other(his partner) is so feminine. He does all the cooking,sewing, crafts etc. Each could contribute their own individual skills, knowledge and passions to the child.So if the perfect situation was there then I believe the child could be just as well off in a Gay home as a hetero home... Minus the Parents knowledge of actually being the other sex,and minus the harassment (which I don't know how to end).
I have no doubt in my mind that my Gay friend would be one of the best Dads on the planet. I just don't know if John(his partner),even being as feminine as he is, could be the mother of a daughter the way a woman could be. After all he is still a man. Will he understand how important it is to her to have her toes painted when she bothers him at an inopportune time? I don't! Will he buy her the Barbie dvd or Finding Nemo? See,my wife fills in the blanks for me. I could not do it without her. She knows what being a little girl is all about. I don't. Things I find crazy,stupid,waste of time etc....are things that are VERY important to my girl. I wouldn't take her to the nail salon every month for girl stuff. I see it as a waste of time and money. Flowers are another thing guys can't figure out. Why are they important? Why won't a gift certificate to Outback steakhouse be receive as graciously?
Perhaps if there were courses offered to these prospected parents then maybe this could be solved. Until then, I still think that a child who has a mother AND a father are better off then one who has 2 moms or 2 dads. But 2 moms or 2 dads is better than what most kids have right now. One parent.True??
Oh devil, my naive friend. Since you are clearly not gay, you could never understand how easy it is to be a gay parent. I do not have children by the way.
quote:
I wouldn't take her to the nail salon every month for girl stuff. I see it as a waste of time and money. Flowers are another thing guys can't figure out. Why are they important? Why won't a gift certificate to Outback steakhouse be receive as graciously?
As funny as that is, only a gay parent knows why they are important. "Girl stuff" is something you do to make yourself feel good, treat yourself, and improve upon your appearance. Flowers show that you appreciate someone enough to present them with something beautiful, like they are. The outback steak house says, let's eat like pigs and get fat. Nothing against the outback, but that would be the difference.
You see part of the reason gays are not considered equal is because gay men are considered "weak" by society. And since they are looked upon in that fashion, they are associated with women in our society. Women are still treated as less than. They don't make as much money as men, and are not given respect when they become successful. Women are equal to men. And in most cases, women work harder and do more than men. So gay men are looked upon as women. Lesbians have it a little bit easier, but not by much.
So you now have the gender issue. There are men, women, and gays. Or the way society treats people you have men and women/gays. Women end up parenting the kids most of the time, regardless if there is a man around or not. Gay men understand women, that's why we have so many female friends. We have a lot in common with women. We both date men (the dogs that they are). So the psyche of gay men and women on the parenting issue is very close. Biological feelings have nothing to do with helping a child develop in a healthy fashion. And of course Lesbians are female (duh) so they are quite capable of parenting. The real parenting problem is the vast majority of heterosexual men. Most can be good fathers in the beginning if they choose to, but eventually most men shy away from the childs development as the child matures. Not all men, but most.
I personally try to be very diverse in my roles in life. Then again I am a very independent person. I want to be able to learn and do something myself. So I have learned many traditional male things. Building stuff (furniture), I love powertools, I love ripping out walls and changing a structure, I love computers and electronics. All "guy" stuff. And I can bake, sew, decorate, tell you whats wrong with that outfit you are wearing, etc. All "girl" stuff. And yet I am just an average looking person. So how would my talents not make a good parent?
Well I'm male, so I know how to be in the boys club. It's guys night out and trouble will be had. Gettin' drunk and causing trouble. It's real easy to fall in to that. I think that's built into every man.
However, I can easily imitate a teenage girl. (--uses valley girl voice--) Like... WHATEVER! I totally think that... like... nail polish, would go great with those shoes, ya kno? But you are so not wearing that **** with those pants, Like, Oh My God. I'm so sure. WHATEVER! All of the other girls will think you are so... not with it. That is sooooo uncool. Got it?
My little girl would be treated like a princess. Any man would drool to have her hand in marriage by the time she was 18. Intelligent, beautiful and successful would be my goal for her. My son would also be a real looker. He would treat women with respect, always be honest and intelligent.
And the most important thing my children would have, is love. No matter where they were in the world, they would know that they always were, and are, loved. There is nothing like that feeling. I am very fortunate, I know that feeling. And my family knows I feel the same about them.
So gender roles are not really the important part of a couple. I know two guys that can't do any "girl" stuff. It's actually quite funny. It's like two bulls in a china shop. The important part of parenting is what you teach kids, how you prepare them for independence. It's just as easy to teach a boy to respect women as it is to teach a girl to respect men. Because you are really teching them to respect people. When you remove the gender issue, you get one human raising another human.
I could easily argue that humans should not raise puppies. We are not even of their species. Yet we do it. So really gay parents doesn't seem so weird when you put that perspective on it.
outsider said this in post #243 :
[B]Oh devil, my naive friend. Since you are clearly not gay, you could never understand how easy it is to be a gay parent.
And in this post ousider says:
quote:
Gay men understand women, that's why we have so many female friends. We have a lot in common with women. We both date men (the dogs that they are). So the psyche of gay men and women on the parenting issue is very close.
If devildog can't understand a gay parent because he's not gay, then how can a gay man understand a woman since he's not a woman?
devildog said this in post #242 : You make valid points mystic. I was kinda saying that a poll like that is kinda kooky. How do you poll that? If a child hears ridicule ONE time about their parents sexuality , he/she is disadvantaged in my opinion. I didn't hear that growing up so I don't know the feeling the child must encounter, but it has to be considered a disadvantage, right?
I understand that there are exceptions to the rule but in general I believe my post was accurate. Mystic, what if you didn't have your Dad to turn to? What if the complete polar opposite of your other parental unit wasn't there? What if you had 2 of your Moms? Who would you have turned to?
Having said this; I do see my Friend with his partner and they couldn't be further apart on the polar scale. One is, as I've mentioned in other posts, a man's man. Fast cars, sports, working out etc. The other(his partner) is so feminine. He does all the cooking,sewing, crafts etc. Each could contribute their own individual skills, knowledge and passions to the child.So if the perfect situation was there then I believe the child could be just as well off in a Gay home as a hetero home... Minus the Parents knowledge of actually being the other sex,and minus the harassment (which I don't know how to end).
I have no doubt in my mind that my Gay friend would be one of the best Dads on the planet. I just don't know if John(his partner),even being as feminine as he is, could be the mother of a daughter the way a woman could be. After all he is still a man. Will he understand how important it is to her to have her toes painted when she bothers him at an inopportune time? I don't! Will he buy her the Barbie dvd or Finding Nemo? See,my wife fills in the blanks for me. I could not do it without her. She knows what being a little girl is all about. I don't. Things I find crazy,stupid,waste of time etc....are things that are VERY important to my girl. I wouldn't take her to the nail salon every month for girl stuff. I see it as a waste of time and money. Flowers are another thing guys can't figure out. Why are they important? Why won't a gift certificate to Outback steakhouse be receive as graciously?
Perhaps if there were courses offered to these prospected parents then maybe this could be solved. Until then, I still think that a child who has a mother AND a father are better off then one who has 2 moms or 2 dads. But 2 moms or 2 dads is better than what most kids have right now. One parent.True??
hey D.dog...I had a really good (and long) post that I wrote earlier and it didnt go through...I got an error note...I was really mad...
I will respond to this later tonight.....I in the middle of doing something right now and cannot look up the stuff I had...but I had some stuff you might have been interested in...I will do it later!
If devildog can't understand a gay parent because he's not gay, then how can a gay man understand a woman since he's not a woman?
Don't these things kind of contradict each other?
If you were gay kooka you would understand. And I was generalizing, most gay men understand women quite well, but not all gay men. It's not a 100% percent thing, more like 90 to 10.
Did someone take a poll of this outsider, and that's how you know about 90 % of them understand women? I'm just wondering where your references come from... as a fact or just a hunch? Just curious.
Why do they associate with women so well? I've noticed that too.
Outsider, excellent post! You're so right! It's about a human raising a human. There are many heterosexual men who are quite feminine and hetero females who are quite masculine. The same can be said for homosexual males and females. Fem Men, Fem Women, Masc. Men and Masc. Women. It doesn't matter who the kid is raised by. If that parent is in tune with the sensitivities and interests of their child, it doesn't matter what sex the parent is, nor does it matter what their sexual orientation is.
I bet if you separated identical twins, placed one in a hetero parental environment and one in a homosexual parental environment you would probably find the following.
1. If both sets of parents are in loving committed relationships, both children would have healthy communicative relationships in their later lives.
2. Depending on the mindset of the sets of parents, at least one of the twins would grow up fully respectful of all people and be able to look on their fellow man as equals regardless of race, color, creed or orientation.
Kookaburra said this in post #248 : Did someone take a poll of this outsider, and that's how you know about 90 % of them understand women? I'm just wondering where your references come from... as a fact or just a hunch? Just curious.
Why do they associate with women so well? I've noticed that too.
I don't see what polls have to do with anything. Not that polls truly represent the masses of anything anyway. Outsider is an admitted gay man, I think he would know a little more about the psychè of a gay man than you would. Wouldn't you agree?
Besides every gay man I've ever known has always had a strong feminine side, though there are many "butch" gay men out there as well.
He's saying about 90% gay men understand women. I was wondering how he determined it was 90%. He's the one that posted the percentages, so I was just wondering how he came up with the figures. I have yet to see a man that understands what it's like to be a woman. The feminine side of gay men always over exaggerate femininity to the point where it's over the top and unnatural. Almost freakish. So I'm just wondering how they understand women when they can't get the women mannerisms mastered.
Where do the feminine men get their behaviors from? Are they "born" with it, do they practice it, do they study women and try to mimic it? I'm just curious since he said gay men understand women, I was wondering how? They don't act like women, as I said before, they act unnatural.
Kookaburra said this in post #251 : He's saying about 90% gay men understand women. I was wondering how he determined it was 90%. He's the one that posted the percentages, so I was just wondering how he came up with the figures.
I believe his exact phrasing was: "It's not a 100% percent thing, more like 90 to 10." He never said 90%. You did.
I have yet to see a man that understands what it's like to be a woman. The feminine side of gay men always over exaggerate femininity to the point where it's over the top and unnatural.
And you're basing this on what? Polls? Your personal experience?
Almost freakish.
Oh Reeeeaaaally? (Insert Ace Ventura impersonation here)
Almost "freakish"? Nice choice of wording coming from a moderator.
So I'm just wondering how they understand women when they can't get the women mannerisms mastered.
Um, who says they're trying ? And to throw in my own personal experiences, I've known gay men who behave more like ladies than females.
Where do the feminine men get their behaviors from? Are they "born" with it, do they practice it, do they study women and try to mimic it? I'm just curious since he said gay men understand women, I was wondering how?
Because some gay men just like some hetero men and some feminine women, possess feminine traits. It's all a part of the complexities of being human.
They don't act like women, as I said before, they act unnatural .
Unnatural? Really? So when animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behaviors, is that too, "Unnatural"? They are indeed, in NATURE. They certainly didn't "learn" their behavior by watching episodes of 'Will & Grace'.
Kooka, I was giving an approximation. MOST gay men understand women. Some gay men really dislike women. I was not refrencing a study. It was not my intention to make it sound like a study. It was an approximation on all of the people I have met in my lifetime.
Apparently we are talking about different types of "knowing" women. I was not talking about drag queens who impersonate women. That is a whole other subject. I am talking about the friendships gay men have with straight women. Many women choose gay men as friends because 1) we aren't going to try anything inappropiate with them and 2) we aren't going to steal their husbands/boyfriends. Those are the major reasons that straight women like us. And that close friendship means that straight women share all kinds of information that straight men would never know. And gay men and lesbians get along quite well for the same reason as stated above. So we know what women like and want and who they are because, they share with us. And we share with them. It's a great relationship.
There was just a commercial on for a TV show on Fox about gaydar. A straight woman has to figure out who out of a group of guys is straight. That could be an interesting show.
Chel, some of the most interesting studies on human behavior and genetics is done on twins. The University of Minnesota is a world authority on this. They publish all kinds of cool stuff from their own press. Your comments on twins could probably be proven true by the UofM. Great point.
[QUOTE]I believe his exact phrasing was: "It's not a 100% percent thing, more like 90 to 10." He never said 90%. You did.
Actually he did say 90%, that's where I got the number from. Although now that I think of it, he could have meant 90% don't understand women, and 10% do.
quote:
And you're basing this on what? Polls? Your personal experience?
Personal experience. I said "I have yet to see a man that understands..." not 90% of the men do not understand women.
quote:
Oh Reeeeaaaally? (Insert Ace Ventura impersonation here)
Almost "freakish"? Nice choice of wording coming from a moderator.
What does moderator have anything to do with it? I'm explaining my perception of the behavior, which has nothing to do with being a moderator. I'm surprised you don't pull these out of the other moderator posts, but mine?
I think we've already established that moderators also debate in the forum. I'm trying to explain my perception and freaky is the best word I can come up with to explain the over exaggeration of men acting feminine.
quote:
Um, who says they're trying ? And to throw in my own personal experiences, I've known gay men who behave more like ladies than females.
Who says they're trying to understand women? I believe outsider said they understand women, and I'm asking how they understand women. Not sure I understand your quote above, as it didn't explain how they understand women.
quote:
Because some gay men just like some hetero men and some feminine women, possess feminine traits. It's all a part of the complexities of being human.
Ok, that's a good answer. I was curious. The majority of the gay men I've seen over exaggerate feminine behavior and I was curious where the behavior comes from. You're opinion is they are traits... any backings or just assumptions? I thought it was a learned behavior.
quote:
Unnatural? Really? So when animals in the wild exhibit homosexual behaviors, is that too, "Unnatural"? They are indeed, in NATURE. They certainly didn't "learn" their behavior by watching episodes of 'Will & Grace'.
I've never seen this show, so I don't know what you mean how they would learn from it. And who's talking about animals in the wild? I'm talking about human men, not animals.
outsider said this in post #254 : Kooka, I was giving an approximation. MOST gay men understand women. Some gay men really dislike women. I was not refrencing a study. It was not my intention to make it sound like a study. It was an approximation on all of the people I have met in my lifetime.
Apparently we are talking about different types of "knowing" women. I was not talking about drag queens who impersonate women. That is a whole other subject. I am talking about the friendships gay men have with straight women. Many women choose gay men as friends because 1) we aren't going to try anything inappropiate with them and 2) we aren't going to steal their husbands/boyfriends. Those are the major reasons that straight women like us. And that close friendship means that straight women share all kinds of information that straight men would never know. And gay men and lesbians get along quite well for the same reason as stated above. So we know what women like and want and who they are because, they share with us. And we share with them. It's a great relationship.
There was just a commercial on for a TV show on Fox about gaydar. A straight woman has to figure out who out of a group of guys is straight. That could be an interesting show.
Chel, some of the most interesting studies on human behavior and genetics is done on twins. The University of Minnesota is a world authority on this. They publish all kinds of cool stuff from their own press. Your comments on twins could probably be proven true by the UofM. Great point.
At least YOU understood what I was trying to say in my post and didn't jump to conclusions that I'm trying to insult you or compare you to rusty cars. Thank you for your answer outsider.
Kooka... that rusty cars comment came from someone else. So, before you ASSUME that I'm saying something to you, make sure you're right. And, whether these be your feelings or not... your comments are insulting. You might not agree... but others see the same thing. We've got the point... you feel that homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, etc... but some of the things you say... way you say it, ARE very insulting to many.
You're welcome. I always understand that comment. Most people have only met "femme" or "sissy" gay men. That is the stereotype they are looking for in gay men. What they never bring up are the men like Rock Hudson, David Kopay (baseball), Billy Bean (also baseball), Rod Jackson-Paris ( http://christian-books-online.net/0944092179.html this link has a picture of him and as you can see it id "G" rated).
We're all not of bunch of dress wearing sissy's. There are very feminine men, don't get me wrong. But then again I know a number of feminine straight men.
KJ said this in post #253 : Wow... first compared to rusty cars and red necks, in one of the threads...
now... we're freakish and unnatural.
I'm about to the end of the rope with insulting comments. My lips are zipped for the moment, but it's getting harder and harder.
quote:
KJ said this in post #257 : Kooka... that rusty cars comment came from someone else. So, before you ASSUME that I'm saying something to you, make sure you're right.
Considering the in the post I quoted above, you pulled out something I had just posted in my comment that is, freakish and unnatural, I don't believe I ASSUMED you were saying something to me. I think I already made sure I was right that you were talking to me because you mentioned my post. If you weren't talking to me, then you didn't specifiy who you were talking to. Since your post went out to the public and not to a private message, I think we can all ASSUME you were talking to whomever was going to be reading the post.
quote:
And, whether these be your feelings or not... your comments are insulting. You might not agree... but others see the same thing. We've got the point... you feel that homosexuality is a sin, unnatural, etc... but some of the things you say... way you say it, ARE very insulting to many.
I could take the debates about Christianity and the posts about us as insulting too, but I don't. I understand people have differences and they want to discuss the differences. I have questions but because I ask them, I'm considered overstepping my moderating duties, or insulting?
Shouldn't take things as an insult. Fight for what you believe in just like I do. I've seen some pretty harsh descriptive words coming out of your posts for people who oppose homosexuality, so I'm not sure why when I post opposite of your views, you take it as an insult.
Kookaburra said this in post #259 : I could take the debates about Christianity and the posts about us as insulting too, but I don't. I understand people have differences and they want to discuss the differences. I have questions but because I ask them, I'm considered overstepping my moderating duties, or insulting?
It's not the questions, it's the way they are put. Anyone can ask a question about anything on earth, but how you say it, the words you choose, determine the reaction and answer you will get.
outsider said this in post #258 : You're welcome. I always understand that comment. Most people have only met "femme" or "sissy" gay men. That is the stereotype they are looking for in gay men. What they never bring up are the men like Rock Hudson, David Kopay (baseball), Billy Bean (also baseball), Rod Jackson-Paris ( http://christian-books-online.net/0944092179.html this link has a picture of him and as you can see it id "G" rated).
We're all not of bunch of dress wearing sissy's. There are very feminine men, don't get me wrong. But then again I know a number of feminine straight men.
Ok this makes a lot of sense now that you've explained it. I have never met a masculine gay man, but then again, if I have, I wouldn't have known they were gay, because like you said, I wouldn't have thought a gay man to be masculine.
outsider said this in post #247 : If you were gay kooka you would understand. And I was generalizing, most gay men understand women quite well, but not all gay men. It's not a 100% percent thing, more like 90 to 10.
Actually he did say 90%, that's where I got the number from. Although now that I think of it, he could have meant 90% don't understand women, and 10% do.
ACTUALLY he DID say what I thought he said, which was....Um.... 90 to 10 If you don't believe, see above quotation.
Personal experience. I said "I have yet to see a man that understands..." not 90% of the men do not understand women.
And my comment was regarding your claim of: "The feminine side of gay men always over exaggerate femininity to the point where it's over the top and unnatural. "
Wasn't commenting about "how a man understands." ...NOW who's showing their true colors?
What does moderator have anything to do with it? I'm explaining my perception of the behavior, which has nothing to do with being a moderator. I'm surprised you don't pull these out of the other moderator posts, but mine?
You know, it's funny you should mention that. Sean happens to be a moderator who does not favor all gay issues and disagrees with some of my ideals alot. But I've never witnessed him label gays as "unnatural" or "unequal, nor should they have equal rights". As a MODERATOR, he respects the fact that the forum members and some moderators are indeed gay.
I think we've already established that moderators also debate in the forum.
Debating respectfully in regards to your title is one thing, flinging hateful messages is quite another.
I'm trying to explain my perception and freaky is the best word I can come up with to explain the over exaggeration of men acting feminine.
Wow. Another hateful phrase. I thought you never called people names kooka.
Who says they're trying to understand women? I believe outsider said they understand women, and I'm asking how they understand women. Not sure I understand your quote above, as it didn't explain how they understand women.
I think he explained that quite clear, if you had bothered to read it. He said, both gay men and women date MEN and women don't feel threatened by a gay male friend, as gay men would never overstep the boundary of friendship and hit on them. He was making a statement out of personal experience and you're asking him to produce polls and charts??? What are YOUR experiences with gay men to tell you otherwise???
The majority of the gay men I've seen over exaggerate feminine behavior and I was curious where the behavior comes from. You're opinion is they are traits... any backings or just assumptions? I thought it was a learned behavior.
I don't really feel like doing the research for you dear kooka, along with many others, I've posted many links to sites that produce the "backing" you're asking for. My suggestion, look it up yourself. I'm not going to walk you through this like I'm your babysitter.
I've never seen this show, so I don't know what you mean how they would learn from it. And who's talking about animals in the wild? I'm talking about human men, not animals.
You've never seen this show? Ok, there's these things called the internet and library. They're pretty cool. They both have seemingly endless amounts of information on FACTS about the NATURE and the WILD.
And I suppose you're right, we're talking about humans, not the wild. Oh but wait...going back to SEVERAL of your posts referring to the Bible, God created ALL THINGS GREAT AND SMALL including animals in the....say it with me now...the WILD. Which logic would deduce that if GOD intended the animals he created to have those traits, wouldn't it mean the same for man?
devildog said this in post #242 : You make valid points mystic. I was kinda saying that a poll like that is kinda kooky. How do you poll that? If a child hears ridicule ONE time about their parents sexuality , he/she is disadvantaged in my opinion. I didn't hear that growing up so I don't know the feeling the child must encounter, but it has to be considered a disadvantage, right?
Well.....an overweight child can be said to have a "disadvantage." A child with disabilties can be said to be disadvantaged. Kids with a lisp, etc, etc.
Im sorry but kids are kids, and many, if not all, have been teased at some point in their life. Even a child with a particular name can be at a disadvantage...if you want to call it that.
I hope this is coming out right...but I dont feel that children of gay parents are any more at a disadvantage as any other kid considering that I feel most if not all are "disadvantaged" to a point, such as with some of the simplest points I made above.
I understand that there are exceptions to the rule but in general I believe my post was accurate. Mystic, what if you didn't have your Dad to turn to? What if the complete polar opposite of your other parental unit wasn't there? What if you had 2 of your Moms? Who would you have turned to?
<
What kind of trouble? The kind that we've already been in since our inception? Do you think the purpose behind the 9/11 attacks was because of the American's acceptance of gays? Do you think that the world will come to an end because of gay marriage? 
