US: Democrat or Republican

[got tonkaed]

napoleon....your claim that without a mother and a father children are scarred permanently...not only has no scientific background, but also could be just as easily extended to the idea that no one should be allowed to get a divorce and that bad parents should be allowed to be parents.

Im pretty sure you dont want to take either of those stances....

[Napoleon Ier]

napoleon....your claim that without a mother and a father children are scarred permanently...not only has no scientific background, but also could be just as easily extended to the idea that no one should be allowed to get a divorce and that bad parents should be allowed to be parents.

Im pretty sure you dont want to take either of those stances....

in extreme cases, children must be taken from parent, or inversly,in somecases a mother can raise a child aloneif the fatheris dead/has left, as a child's rightful parent is almos invariably best suited to raise it, but this is just fine detail, the main point, being that a mother and a father should, as always has been the case, be the basis for the family, stands.

You speak of scientific basis, but this is absurd! Humans are obviously meant to be raised by two different sex parents.

Look at it thus : If children are raised by two iffernet parents, it will undeniably change them. It is unfair, to just because some particlarly vociferous group of disgusting individuals put their "rights" abovethewellbeing of children, allw them to have an effect on children which we know nothing about.

[Snorri1234]

Where did society get the idea that murder is bad from? I can show you that atheists & secular humanists still claim a set of principles to follow. Up until recent times, they were referred to as a religion.

Because it's bad for society. If you could just kill whomever you wanted and get away with it, chaos would ensue. It's also based on the argument that no life is worth more than another, and therefore everybody should have the right to live. I can't make a reasonable argument why I should be able to kill my neighbor but he shouldn't be able to kill me, so we just agree that we shouldn't kill one another.

Sure, they are..."thou shalt not steal" is religiously based. Secular humanists also think it's wrong, and they are just as religious as an Christian.

Yes indeed "thou shalt not steal" is found in the bible. It's also found in basically any culture all over the world. Because it's clear that if stealing was allowed a society would collapse in ruins. If people could just steal all your stuff and not be punished for it, wouldn't that basically mean that all we get is an extreme form of property defense.

I have asked myself that and have come to the conclusion that they don't make sense. If it's not based on something higher than ourselves than you really can't expect people to obey it except out of selfish reasons or fear of punishment. (In other words, there is no right and wrong...only a consensus on what benefits society).

Yes, I do believe for the most part that there is no absolute right and wrong. The whole idea behind laws is that everybody reasonably agrees that the laws serve everybody the most. Try reading about Kant and his first formulation of moral imperative. If something cannot be applied in a society and not destroy that society, then the act shouldn't be permitted. If everybody could murder or steal it basically would mean the collapse of society.Kant

Good point. The Bible says both are sin so it's consistent. It is human society that is inconsistent and tries to say some sins are OK while others are "sort of" bad. That's justifying the behavior on the part of society.

The point of the example is to show that the law isn't based on the bible.

There is no "wall of separation". That phrase was taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists. Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when it was written...he was in France. That phrase was used in the Everson case to justify the Supreme Court's authority over state's rights because New Jersey was one of the states that refused to pass their own version of the Blaine amendments.

What? Ofcourse there is a seperation, that's the only way you can have freedom of religion and speech.

[Snorri1234]

So, allowing two women to marry is now a "gateway marriage" to child abuse?! Just like alchohol is the gateway to heroin...right? Please. You need to join Xtratabascos tin foil hat club.

Yes it is. Gay marriage leads, in France indeed comes with, the right to adopt. Two women raising a kid is perverse. Children aren't toys for the gay community to try and get rights to, they deserve, wherever possible, a mummy and a daddy, without which they are irrevcably scarred.

Way to dodge the question there, dude. He is asking if you believe that because we allow gay marriage we will eventually allow peadophiles and zoophiles too.
You're basically equating 2 consenting adults with 1 consenting adult and someone unable to consent.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, allowing two women to marry is now a "gateway marriage" to child abuse?! Just like alchohol is the gateway to heroin...right? Please. You need to join Xtratabascos tin foil hat club.

Yes it is. Gay marriage leads, in France indeed comes with, the right to adopt. Two women raising a kid is perverse. Children aren't toys for the gay community to try and get rights to, they deserve, wherever possible, a mummy and a daddy, without which they are irrevcably scarred.

Way to dodge the question there, dude. He is asking if you believe that because we allow gay marriage we will eventually allow peadophiles and zoophiles too.
You're basically equating 2 consenting adults with 1 consenting adult and someone unable to consent.

Yeah ok, I see my answer may have been slightly unsatisfactory. However, Gay adoption you can seefrommy post can be seen as child abuse.
As for paedophilia, if the child were consenting, you would proably still seeit as wrong.

[Backglass]

Yeah ok, I see my answer may have been slightly unsatisfactory. However, Gay adoption you can seefrommy post can be seen as child abuse.

Only through your twisted glasses.

I have an friend who was raised by her two "old maid" Aunt's when her parents died (she was an infant). They were sisters, not lovers. Are you saying my friend was "undeniably changed" by this two-female rearing experience? Should it have been stopped?

You have a mistaken opinion that a child being raised by a gay couple is damaged in some way, or that it will "turn the child gay". Neither are true.

Your evidence is transparent. (pun not intended!)

[got tonkaed]

in extreme cases, children must be taken from parent, or inversly,in somecases a mother can raise a child aloneif the fatheris dead/has left, as a child's rightful parent is almos invariably best suited to raise it, but this is just fine detail, the main point, being that a mother and a father should, as always has been the case, be the basis for the family, stands.

well...it is not really just a fine detail. Because you are beginning to set a precedent for who can and who cannot parent. In many cases the biological parents are certainly not the best parents possible in the case of the childs best interest. However, you seem to want to just do mental gymnastics around this point, which shows either a failure to look at the issue, or to cover up some of your other views.

You speak of scientific basis, but this is absurd! Humans are obviously meant to be raised by two different sex parents.

i dont know if i disagree with your or not....but having learned a lot about the power of socialization....nothing is obviously meant...it is learned.

Look at it thus : If children are raised by two iffernet parents, it will undeniably change them. It is unfair, to just because some particlarly vociferous group of disgusting individuals put their "rights" abovethewellbeing of children, allw them to have an effect on children which we know nothing about.

it certainly has not been proven in any way that it will change them. Nor has it been proven it would change them any differently than parents of divorced children. Simply because you do not like that group of people does not mean that you have a greater right to happiness than they do.

[Snorri1234]

As for paedophilia, if the child were consenting, you would proably still seeit as wrong.

Yes, because a child cannot actually consent legally. They cannot understand what they're consenting too. I view sex as something that is beautifull and should only be done by people who can actually understand the impact and emotion involved in it. Kids and animals can't do that.

[beezer]

Did you choose to be straight at any point?

No, it's natural. I was born that way. Homosexuals cannot make the same claim with any credibility since there is no scientific basis for it. Like others have said here, there is no gay gene which makes someone born gay.

see, you guys give yourselves away when you use language like that. Perverted? Subjective.

"You guys"!!! Hey, someone went to the Ross Perot school of tolerance. I'm not giving myself away to anything. I am being VERY direct and saying I think it's unnatural and perverted.

If it's a subjective view then your view is no better than mine.

Stephen Fry - a UK national treasure - he has been openly gay his entire life. For many years he was also celibate. Does that make him not gay?

I would say that makes him smart to not act upon his homosexual desires. Since there's an increased risk of contracting AIDS & other diseases he has less of a chance of dying early since he's being celibate. He's not gay - he's homosexual.

I know what you are thinking about when you talk about 'perverted sexual practices'; well, many hetero couples do exactly the same thing. And many gay men don't.

Studies show that homosexual men are HIGHLY promiscuous. I don't know what studies you've been reading about it. I wouldn't advocate sodomy by anyone because there are also medical conseuquences for that kind of behavior.

...But, continue to assume away.

You can also continue to assume that people are born homosexual without any proof.

[heavycola]

by 'you guys' i mean bigots, obviously. Another thing that gives you away is your equation of homosexuality with anal sex. 'he's not gay - he's homosexual'? WTF does this mean? Since when does someone who believes thios is all fire and brimstone and an evil perversion get to redefine these terms? absolutely ludicrous.


Listen - the 'gay gene' question is really immaterial here. It doesn't matter either way, except i suppose for the flippant way it dismisses the suffering of so many men and women over the preceding centuries. I don't know where 'gayness' comes from, and neither do you. The fact is that your church teaches you that being gay is a 'perversion', and that's the bottom line.
God creates mankind - the bible says homosexuality is a sin - therefore god cannot have created naturally gay people - therefore it's a choice. if that isn't your reasoning, please show me where i am wrong. If it is, and i believe it is, then it sucks. No pun intended. Think for your damn self.

(BTW these ideas that all gay men do is shag each other up the arse all the time came, i have to say, from your own fevered imagination...)

[Snorri1234]

Studies show that homosexual men are HIGHLY promiscuous.

Well duh, they're guys.

No, it's natural. I was born that way. Homosexuals cannot make the same claim with any credibility since there is no scientific basis for it.

Uhm, we have yet to discover the heterosexual-gene too.

[Backglass]

No, it's natural. I was born that way. Homosexuals cannot make the same claim with any credibility since there is no scientific basis for it. Like others have said here, there is no gay gene which makes someone born gay.

There is also no scientific basis for your assertion either. Homosexuals have existed since time began. Homosexuals activity has been seen in every animal. Sounds to me like it is completely "natural".

see, you guys give yourselves away when you use language like that. Perverted? Subjective.

"You guys"!!! Hey, someone went to the Ross Perot school of tolerance. I'm not giving myself away to anything. I am being VERY direct and saying I think it's unnatural and perverted.

If it's a subjective view then your view is no better than mine.

True. You have every right to be a close minded ass.

Stephen Fry - a UK national treasure - he has been openly gay his entire life. For many years he was also celibate. Does that make him not gay?

I would say that makes him smart to not act upon his homosexual desires. Since there's an increased risk of contracting AIDS & other diseases he has less of a chance of dying early since he's being celibate. He's not gay - he's homosexual.

Gay=Homosexual. The same thing. AIDS kills more heterosexuals than homosexuals annually. Please skip ahead to 2007.

I know what you are thinking about when you talk about 'perverted sexual practices'; well, many hetero couples do exactly the same thing. And many gay men don't.

Studies show that homosexual men are HIGHLY promiscuous. I don't know what studies you've been reading about it. I wouldn't advocate sodomy by anyone because there are also medical conseuquences for that kind of behavior.

MEN are highly promiscuous. Gay men just have an easier time finding partners. As for sodomy, more heterosexuals practice it than homosexuals. Just look at ANY porn site/movie.

...But, continue to assume away.

You can also continue to assume that people are born homosexual without any proof.

As you can continue to falsely assume that homosexuality is simply a choice.

How you can sit on your high horse and honestly believe that ANYONE would actually CHOOSE to be completely different, misunderstood in school, ridiculed, scorned and ostracized...often by their own parents, is beyond me and simply asinine. If it were a simple choice, nobody would make it.

Direct Question Beezer: Honestly...How many gay people have you actually spoken to about this subject?

[luns101]

Once you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples...other groups are going to start protesting and saying that their behavior should also be granted legal status.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

Because it cheapens and degrades the institution of marriage. It makes a mockery of what has been traditionally practiced as the the joining together of a man and woman to become a family and bring new life into this world. Homosexuals cannot bring new life into the world. To grant them legal endorsement/acceptance is to cheapen and disrespect life itself.

Once you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples...other groups are going to start protesting and saying that their behavior should also be granted legal status.

And what exactly is wrong with that? How does this affect YOUR marriage? What terrible fate awaits heterosexual couples if two women are allowed to legally marry?

That question assumes that marriage belongs to me exclusively. I don't accept your premise that it belongs to only me...it's larger than me. Marriage is a publicly recognized by the government. You don't just change the definition of marriage on a whim or because it happens to be popular at a certain time. Once you redefine marriage for same-sex couples, you better get ready for the moral downslide. There will be other groups just waiting to have their behavior endorsed by the government: same-relative marriage, adult-child marriage, cross-specie marriage.

I know I'll get one of your usual LOL's on this and probably a funny picture in order to divert attention away from your shaky position, but there are groups that are already waiting in the wings if same-sex marriage is approved to also be officially recognized as legitimate.

As you can continue to falsely assume that homosexuality is simply a choice.

OK, then let's see your proof that it's not.

[Snorri1234]

How you can sit on your high horse and honestly believe that ANYONE would actually CHOOSE to be completely different, misunderstood in school, ridiculed, scorned and ostracized...often by their own parents, is beyond me and simply asinine. If it were a simple choice, nobody would make it.

Yeah I never got this.

I think this argument alone disproves everything about homosexuality being a choice.

[Napoleon Ier]

The choice doesn't have to be entirely conscious, it is strictly abnormal psychology

[got tonkaed]

The choice doesn't have to be entirely conscious, it is strictly abnormal psychology

is it any more abnormal than deciding that relatively conservative if not fundamentalist (though not necessarily you) is the way to view the world.

Although ethnocentrism is fun, its not necessarily the way to try to decide what normal is.

[Snorri1234]

Because it cheapens and degrades the institution of marriage. It makes a mockery of what has been traditionally practiced as the the joining together of a man and woman to become a family and bring new life into this world. Homosexuals cannot bring new life into the world. To grant them legal endorsement/acceptance is to cheapen and disrespect life itself.

Homosexuals can too. Just because one partner wouldn't be the biological father/mother doesn't make it any less.
Or are you saying that people can't divorce and/or remarry either?

Once you redefine marriage for same-sex couples, you better get ready for the moral downslide. There will be other groups just waiting to have their behavior endorsed by the government: same-relative marriage, adult-child marriage, cross-specie marriage.

NO IT DOESN'T! There is a very clear difference between homosexual marriage and for example adult-child marriage. Pedophilia is prohibited because children cannot consent. Not because the motherfucking bible says so.
We actually have a reasonable argument against paedophilia and stuff. But fundies often seem to miss that.
This slippery slope you speak of is non-existant, basically because the whole issue of consent. It's like claiming that legalizing marijuana means we will eventually legalize heroïn. (My country is a valid example of that not being the case.)

OK, then let's see your proof that it's not.

Because why the f*ck wouldn't anyone choose to be gay?

[2dimes]

As for sodomy, more heterosexuals practice it than homosexuals. Just look at ANY porn site/movie.

We all live in a pr0n movie.

There's another way you could pay for that premium membership.

There's another way you could pay for those groceries.

[Snorri1234]

The choice doesn't have to be entirely conscious, it is strictly abnormal psychology

Then it's not a choice. And since they're not hurting anyone I don't see why something should be done about it.

[luns101]

I certainly grant there are many who are attempting to treat individuals, and that in some cases they may be able to effectively do something. I must admit i find the idea a bit disconcerting though, because where exactly would one draw the line.

Why would you find it disconcerting, especially since those who have gone through the process express joy in finding freedom from that lifestyle?

Homosexuality as far as i know is currently out of the DSM, so in essence if as a society you suggest you try and cure things which are not currently percieved as illness, where does one draw the line?

Yes, it was until 1973. Why was it dropped? You can read pro-homosexual activist literature and find out from the sources themselves. They came in and disrupted APA meetings starting in 1970. They grabbed the microphone from psychiatrists attending conventions and screamed at them and ridiculed them. Some forged their APA credentials to gain entrance. They made threats against psychiatrists who thought homosexuality could be cured. A "special" committee dismissed homosexuality as a mental disorder behind closed doors in 1973. The main body of the APA could still have overturned their decision but The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list. They sent out mailers encouraging acceptance of the committee's decision. No APA member was informed that it was the NG&LTF really sending the letters. The motion carried.

There you go: no proof needed...just yell, scream, call names, and intimidate in order to get your way.

I dont know if i was casually dismissing the facts that you had by the way, i was simply arguing that you are taking information that clearly was not taken for the intent you were using it for and using it as conclusive proof.

Oh no, not you personally. I was talking about my experiences in general when debating this issue.

I will say this however...those who stand against homosexuality are in a tricky spot.

As are people who stand for it...let's see the proof that they were born this way. When I ask for proof I usually don't get any, just another round of "you're a homophobe".

Im not really sure how at the moment those who want rights limited to homosexuals will be able to win that debate.

Neither do I.

[Napoleon Ier]

Homosexuals can too. Just because one partner wouldn't be the biological father/mother doesn't make it any less.
Or are you saying that people can't divorce and/or remarry either?

Iam deeply disturbed by what I am reading.
1. No, I personally do not believe this,
2. Divorce does irrevocably damage children, and that is something that has been universally proved. Do you really think that divorce is acceptable??!

[Snorri1234]

Homosexuals can too. Just because one partner wouldn't be the biological father/mother doesn't make it any less.
Or are you saying that people can't divorce and/or remarry either?

Iam deeply disturbed by what I am reading.
1. No, I personally do not believe this,
2. Divorce does irrevocably damage children, and that is something that has been universally proved. Do you really think that divorce is acceptable??!

1. Which one do you not personnaly believe?
2. Yes sometimes it does damage children, but many things damage children. And sometimes divorce is actually better than an unhappy marriage where the parents argue all the fuchking time. Divorce does not automatically damage children. I don't think the divorce damages children so much as the fighting that goes before it. I don't think divorce is a good thing or anything, but then I don't think marrying someone you find out isn't the one for you is either. I believe that divorce is certainly acceptable, since the 2 people involved think it's better for them.

Counter-question: Are you saying some people should be unhappy because they might damage their children?

[got tonkaed]

to luns....i find the one issue disconcerting because for a society that holds freedom as a fundamental value, to decide how individuals should live, espeically when the jury will probably remain forever out on if homosexuality is a bad behavior.

Also, to demand proof that something is not a deviant behavior seems a little tricky because we both know its the type of issue that would be very difficult to conclusively prove either way. And do you think your stance would necessarily change if it could be conclusivly proven....how would that be balanced with particular religious beliefs?

I dont know much about the protest efforts to get homosexuality out of the DSM. I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of things that maybe werent so great were done. However id suggest every protest group does things that maybe are pretty controversial (im not justifying them here) just saying its done. Still at the end of the day, because the idea that homosexuality as a mental illness strikes me as wrong, i guess im not that bothered by it, which probably just reflects our differences on the issue.

to napoleon...just as many studies have shown that children in divorced families can be just as well adjusted. This might be a case of failing to see the forest through the trees. Its not necessarily whether the parents are together, its whether the child ends up having the necessary support from parents throughout their developement. Though this is certainly easier if both parents are there, it is not exclusive to two parent homes or at all guaranteed by having two parents.

[Snorri1234]

As are people who stand for it...let's see the proof that they were born this way. When I ask for proof I usually don't get any, just another round of "you're a homophobe".

I cannot offer proof. All I can come up with is a reasonable question asking why anyone would choose to be gay and why most of them are actually not unhappy.

Im not really sure how at the moment those who want rights limited to homosexuals will be able to win that debate.

Neither do I.

Obviously, but what you're arguing against is homosexuals having the same rights as other people.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes. The children's needs always come first. ONLY if separation is best or negligably bad for them isit acceptable

To say hat "divorce is ok on the kids, more or less, so give gays te rights to f*ck em up too" is outrageous.