Author Topic: Getting the government out of marriage (Read 3106 times)

Tarmac · « **Reply #60 on:** February 14, 2004, 02:55:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Is it because you didn't act like your friends, or because your parents placed consequences so you wouldn't mirror your friends' bad behaviour?
-SW

My friends don't behave badly. They're good, intelligent people. The main difference is that some (not all) are content with a half-assed job, with 2.0 GPAs, or with flunking out of college.

My parents never really imposed consequences to my failures, beyond voicing their disappointment and encouraging me to learn so that I wouldn't fail next time. It never really came to harsh consequences, though. The most they ever would do is say "get off the computer, shouldn't you be doing homework?"

maslo · « **Reply #61 on:** February 14, 2004, 03:10:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac

Even if the parents wanted to raise their children to be homosexuals, it shouldn't be the state's business to say that they shouldn't.

It should be bussines of one, who take care of that child.

I think, that we could separeta problem on 2 groups.
1 case is for infants and second for children older 6 years.

I can very well imagine, that gays, lesbians pair will take children at age of 6 and if children will enjoy living with them, they could take care of him. But they shoulnt be called, Parents in my opinion. I can very well imagine, that they will be officialy called "relativs", "unlces or aunts" ...

And probably same with infants.
If a child will grow with fact in his mind, that he live with 2 uncles, aunts its quite ok and i can very well imagina, that he will have no problem to live in society, where other children call they parents(man&woman)

generaly i do not see any problem regarding Law in homosexual living
what is solved yet is fact that someone could have 2 fathers, 2 mothers and some children will have 1 mother and 1 father.

am i more clear ?

Ping · « **Reply #62 on:** February 14, 2004, 03:55:53 PM »

Think of the stress a child in school would have to face.
Having to make 2 Mothers day cards, or, 2 Fathers day cards. Putting those kids through the xtra work load is just plain selfish.

Ping · « **Reply #63 on:** February 14, 2004, 03:56:35 PM »

oooops.....forgot.....

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #64 on:** February 14, 2004, 03:56:52 PM »

Kieran, I guess... but whats the line kids say the most? "But daddy/mommy Timmy's parents let him do it!"

Followed by a few minutes of crying or sulking around and whining after they're told "Well I'm not Timmy's parents."
-SW

mrblack · « **Reply #65 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:01:03 PM »

Just an opinion But I always looked at marriage as a religious
union.
therefore I dont think the gov whether it be city state or federal should have anything to do with it.

The marriage Is between two people and God almighty.
Now having said that i personaly think same sex marriage Is a freeking joke.
But that Is just my opinion and I would never force that on anyone as rule of law.

Ping · « **Reply #66 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:06:57 PM »

It is for the most part Mrblack.
I say anyone who wants to get married let them do it in whatever religious sect they may be part of and ignore the others. You want a State marriage so be it.

mietla · « **Reply #67 on:** February 14, 2004, 04:41:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ping
Think of the stress a child in school would have to face.
Having to make 2 Mothers day cards, or, 2 Fathers day cards. Putting those kids through the xtra work load is just plain selfish.

no, we'll just delegalize the Mother's Day and Father's Day. As a matter of fact I've read somewhere that some schools are actually doing it already.

Thrawn · « **Reply #68 on:** February 14, 2004, 07:58:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
So I see it like this... either one side is right, and environment does matter in raising a child, or it doesn't. I can accept either one, but I cannot accept an argument that swings entirely one way when it suits the needs of the argument, and the other way when it doesn't.

Apparently they have found a gene that has a direct correlation to the degee someone will be an *******. But of course, environment does play a roll with that trait.

I don't see why to to traits can't be exclusive and have different biological systems directing them though. For example.

Genetics dictates that every human will have a heart, with the extrodarily exception, regardless they don't live.

Genetics also dictates a persons height, but there is a fair bit of leeway. Also, diet will affect this as well.

Why can't genetics dictate the sexual orientation, but only be a factor in the developement of social skills?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #69 on:** February 14, 2004, 08:07:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Apparently they have found a gene that has a direct correlation to the degee someone will be an *******.

You know I have never understood how this could possibly be.

If there is a genetic trait that can be passed from one genertion to the next then would not a gay gene die out? Those who had it would (until the advent of modern medicine) be childless, or at least have fewer children than those who don't.

Kieran · « **Reply #70 on:** February 14, 2004, 08:16:18 PM »

You misunderstand me, Thrawn.

The poster made an absolute argument regarding "Homosexuals raising their kids gay", suggesting it isn't even possible. That would suggest it is impossible to make someone go against their genetic tendencies, and that environment has no impact. Many of these same people are against such things as the death penalty, citing as part of their reasoning the upbringing of the murderer as a factor. That would suggest they believe the environment is the main factor.

So, which is it?

Understand, I do believe in a mixture of genetics and environment when it comes to understanding how or why people behave as they do. That means it only makes sense that of course homosexual parents CAN influence the orientation of their "children".

It's not as absolutely impossible as you or Stiehl have suggested. Now you guys might not have a problem with the possibility, however slim, but I do.

miko2d · « **Reply #71 on:** February 14, 2004, 08:33:38 PM »

Holden McGroin: You know I have never understood how this could possibly be.
If there is a genetic trait that can be passed from one genertion to the next then would not a gay gene die out?

Apparently it's a polygenetic trait working indirectly - caused by several genes that affect the chance of a person becoming homosexual by influencing some subtle aspects of brain development. Eye color is a polygenetic trait. The sexual orientation has a lot to do with hormonal levels during the embyo development and those are affected by many factors - various genes, environment, even mother's own hormones and diet.
Each one of those genes may have positive effects and be selected for them.
The single known gene most correlated with intelligence is the one that causes nearsidedness. Nearsidedness is a bad trait but intelligence compensates for it, so it does not get selected out. I believe the same may be true with the set of "gayness" genes.

miko