Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Frogm4n on February 12, 2004, 04:03:32 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif
-
Oh Noooo! What will ever become of our society now?!?
-
Damn, I'm a lesbian...but I'm married... :(
-
Originally posted by SOB
Oh Noooo! What will ever become of our society now?!?
one can only assume that marriages in america will be rampant with devorce and infidelity.
oh wait....
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Getting the government out of marriage
" In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more gay marriage licenses."
I thought you said the government was getting out of marriage?
-
common funckned think. they are challengeing that their should be a law telling people who they can or cannot get married to.
-
A local government deciding who can or can't get married is most definitely NOT the same as "getting the government out of marriage".
There should be no such thing as marriage licenses, and no special benefits for married people that any other person can not have, no government involvement in marriage whatsoever. It is a spiritual or emotional thing between two people. The government has no business meddling with it. That would be "getting the government out of marriage."
-
listen buddy, yea your right.
it should be "Getting the Government to stop policing morles"
-
I am always right. Fight The Power!!!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
listen buddy, yea your right.
it should be "Getting the Government to stop policing morles"
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
If the government stopped policing morals, theft, murder, fraud, and speeding in a school zone all would be acceptable by lack of government interest.
The function of society is to police our behavior so that we can live together.
Do you really wish to stop policing behavior?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif
I would vote against gay marriage, I mean, what would be next, brothers and sisters getting married?? That being said, I'm with Miko on this one, the states should decide, not the feds.
-
If i am doing something that does not affect other citizens( such as buying beer on a sunday morning in tampa) why the hell should there be a law against it? Shouldnt people in texas be able to buy dildos! Think of employees of HTC!
Two gays getting married does not affect other people within the society. The government is not here to police morles to that extreme.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
If i am doing something that does not affect other citizens( such as buying beer on a sunday morning in tampa) why the hell should there be a law against it? Shouldnt people in texas be able to buy dildos! Think of employees of HTC!
Two gays getting married does not affect other people within the society. The government is not here to police morles to that extreme.
What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?
-
thats an entire different matter holden. your bringing in someone that isnt a consenting adult. the subject here is why shouldnt gays be allowed to marry?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?
It may if you show a picture of mom and dad....and dad is a turkey baster.....
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I am always right.
I disagree.
-
If two, (or three or more) consenting adults are considered married with full legal full legal rights, according to that 'contract' it follows that full legal adoption rights would be accorded. It is not a completely different subject.
I'm not saying that two adults should not be able to live together in some legal sense, and maybe full marriage is the right solution. Just that the law of unintended consequenses is quite strong and irrevocable.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
I would vote against gay marriage, I mean, what would be next, brothers and sisters getting married?? That being said, I'm with Miko on this one, the states should decide, not the feds.
If they're consenting adults, I could care less who marries who.
Why should the gov't care?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Do you really wish to stop policing behavior?
The government should only police those behaviors which cause harm to others. Behaviors which cause no harm to others are not the business of the government or anyone else. This concept is known as "liberty" or "freedom".
-
Originally posted by Pei
I disagree.
THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE!!!
-
Atttention:
In (the possibly sole instance of) adoption, marriage does affect others.
Should a judge be barred from discriminating in favor of Ward and June instead of Ward and Jim all else being equal?
When a judge decides the future of a child, it does effect the child.
-
Since adoption seems to be the hanging point here:
Why should the state be able to say that it's in the best interest of a child to be raised by a man and a woman instead of two parents of the same sex? There are probably a lot of homosexual couples that would make better parents than some of the ****head man+woman pairs out there.
If two homosexuals think they can do a good job parenting, it's not the state's business to tell them that they can't.
-
You ever try and fit two bolts together?
Ofcourse not it dont work.
But a bolt and a nut works fine dont it.
Nature makes it easy for us and we still find a way to F--- it up.
Look if brucie wants to marry frankie what do I care.
Do I think Its right Ofcoures I dont.
But It Is there life and them and them alone who will have to answer to God.
So as long as homosexuals respect my hetrosexuality I will respect them.
NUFF SAID.
-
Agreed that some gay parents are better than some straight parents.
I'm just saying that "All Else Being Equal" it should be up to the judges discretion, and the judge should be able to use the relationship of the prospective parents... If we as a society decide that Hetero and Homosexual couples are to be treated equally before the law, then that descretion is removed.
If you agree that that discretion should remain in the mix of the factors that a judge should be able to weigh, then the relationship must therefore be different from the traditional hetero arrangement.
-
Problem is, what is happening in Massachusetts will guarantee government intervention one way or another.
1. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage. People flock to Mass., get married, return to home states, sue states to recognize marriage.
2. Massachusetts writes a marriage protection amendment to their constitution.
It's bad enough Massachusetts might allow gay marriage; it's altogether worse that it will force every other state against their will to have it afterward, and be done in an unconstitutional manner. You guys don't give a crap because it's about this particular issue; start talking about taking your guns or beer and you guys would be up in the air about it.
-
So if I moved to California with my guns, I could sue to get them made legal?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Problem is, what is happening in Massachusetts will guarantee government intervention one way or another.
1. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage. People flock to Mass., get married, return to home states, sue states to recognize marriage.
2. Massachusetts writes a marriage protection amendment to their constitution.
It's bad enough Massachusetts might allow gay marriage; it's altogether worse that it will force every other state against their will to have it afterward, and be done in an unconstitutional manner. You guys don't give a crap because it's about this particular issue; start talking about taking your guns or beer and you guys would be up in the air about it.
Well, in Ma., you have to have car insurance that covers everyone in an accident, in N.H., you don't. Some Ma. residents use addresses in N.H. to register their car and not have to pay the high ins. But they are still driving illegally, and your car will be towed if you are pulled over and do not have the proper insurance by Ma. law. I have yet to see anyone sue the state so they don't have to pay car insurance because N.H. says they don't have to.
-
Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.
Whats next? marriage between a man and a goat?
A woman and a dog?
Have to draw the line against liberal moronism somewhere.....
-
Or let everyone define marriage however they see fit and keep the government out of it. You're free to marry whoever you want to, I'm free to marry whoever I want to.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Or let everyone define marriage however they see fit and keep the government out of it. You're free to marry whoever you want to, I'm free to marry whoever I want to.
But letting people have freedom would lead to goat/man and dog/woman nuptials...or so I've been told.
150 years ago, blacks were traditionally slaves.
a few decades ago, mixed"race" marriages were traditionally disallowed.
The problem with living somewhere that supposedly values liberty and equality is that some people might actually expect liberty and equality.
-
the lawyers are licking their chops at the prospect of twice as many divorces but....
it might backfire... when both parties are men, or... women... who is the court gonna screw over? They might even be forced to be fair and negate the need for lawyers (you can say lawyers here can't you?).
-
My views are simple, call it marriage call it union whatever...
If the government gives tax breaks etc.. to traditionally married people then they got to give the same to gays and lesbos.
The problem here is the benefits given by the union of marriage..
Not the actual act.. or name...
In the military I used to argue with cohorts. They would say; hey we deserve money per spouse per child etc.. and I would say, do they don the kevlar and fight.. (well no) then why is the government paying them?. (to exist wtf)
There was no comment.. How can you with a straight face... trust me the married man does not fight harder on the battlefield, if anything he fights weaker for self preservation but yet govt rewards them for their family status... that’s not equal opportunity..
I used to watch soldiers the same rank as me get twice the pay because of marital/children status. They would spit children out like a assembly line. These same soldiers would have their sorry wives contact the commander to try to get out of field duty.
I was single at the time pulled double the amount of field duty as them.. it was an unfair and biased environment... I threatened to skip the chain of command and report this bull ****e to congress/press; they gave me 3 day pass per field duty served thereafter to shut me up... im not a boat rocker so I accepted to take one for the team..
Still crap if you ask me.. Im very partial on this topic..
See its economic that’s the problem whether its welfare(California has got to love this), military, or marital status govt should bud the hell out or make the same opportunities for all..
Btw before any snide or dumb arse chastisement comes of this im not gay, but I don’t persecute those who are.. That’s their business, my business is my business.. gay people pay taxes and should not be discriminated against..
And note to qualify for whatever benefits it has to be human to human relations not goats trees etc.. (got a laugh out of this one very nice..)
2 cents
DoctorYo
-
Holden McGroin: What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?
A current guardian of a child should decide the best adoptive parents for that child. It certainly does not affect anyone else.
miko
-
Well, I'm new here, but I'm gonna jump into this here fray....check6!
Seems simple to me. If you got a problem with gay marriage.... don't marry a guy man (or woman). :)
This is one more of a long list of victimless crimes, like prostitution and gambling, that the government should get its nose out of, IMHO.
I don't see how one can argue that the judges in an adoption case suddenly don't have any discriminatory powers just because the marriage is now 'legal'?
If my wife and I decide to adopt a child, we wouldn't automatically get custody just because we're married. Or am I missing the point of the argument there? The decision to adopt should not be based on wether the adoptive parents are married or not anyway, but on how well they would raise the child. Period.
It's like a lot of stupid blue laws that are still on the books all over the states. No beer on sunday, or not before noon. Hell, here in OK (the buckle of the f&^%$in' bible belt) I can't even get a real beer at the grocery store. (Limited to 3.2% alcohol, which kills the taste of most beers, surprisingly enough). The culture shock moving here is worse than when I moved to Germany. :eek:
Anyway, got my asbestos underwear on, so flame away.
Cheers,
Sptter
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Holden McGroin: What if you are adopting a child? Does that affect others?
A current guardian of a child should decide the best adoptive parents for that child. It certainly does not affect anyone else.
miko
I don't believe this....
It effects the child! The child is someone else!
Certainly there are gay couples who are better parents than many straight couples but if full equality before the law is granted regardless of the 'style' of marraige, then discrimination by a judge, who is acting as the legal guardian, would not be able to consider the 'style' of marraige in his decision.
If we decide that full rights are warrented except allow some discretion in the case of adoption then the relationship would not have equal status.
-
If a gay couple can provide a good home for a child, what's the problem? Maybe those kids wont go around screaming "Let's string dem homos up!" It's not as if they're going to turn the kids gay or something.
-
Holden McGroin: ...but if full equality before the law is granted regardless of the 'style' of marraige, then discrimination by a judge, who is acting as the legal guardian, would not be able to consider the 'style' of marraige in his decision.
If a judge acting as a guardian believes that it would be in the best interests of a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one among those willing to adopt, he will not be constrained to discriminate against the homosexual couple and act contrary to child's interests. He could certainly consider any factors whatsoever.
That's what we would want to do - the guardian deciding on the spot what's in the child's best interests rather than some bureaucrats many miles and years away deciding in advance.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
If a judge acting as a guardian believes that it would be in the best interests of a child to be adopted by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual one among those willing to adopt, he will not be constrained to discriminate against the homosexual couple and act contrary to child's interests. He could certainly consider any factors whatsoever.
That's what we would want to do - the guardian deciding on the spot what's in the child's best interests rather than some bureaucrats many miles and years away deciding in advance.
miko
So you honestly believe that if a judge decided in favor of a hetero couple, in an otherwise entirely equal competition, then there would be no legal recourse for the gay couple blaming the judge for his homophobic decision.... okey dokey...
The only possible reason for the above decision is obviously the judges perceptions that there may be some strife with the way society views the child's adoptive parents.... and if thats okay, then the gay union will be legally unequal to the hetero union.
-
Originally posted by stiehl
If a gay couple can provide a good home for a child, what's the problem? Maybe those kids wont go around screaming "Let's string dem homos up!" It's not as if they're going to turn the kids gay or something.
Prove it. Let's see if you can.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Prove it. Let's see if you can.
Prove what? That a gay couple won't 'turn' a child gay? As opposed to simply raising a child with an open mind and hopefully more tolerant attitude of those who may have a different view?
Look, this is the real world, you're gonna find jerks anywhere you go. But you can't make a judgement about everyone based on a few whackos. If we did that, we would have outlawed most evangelical forms of religion years ago too.
It seems only fair to give gay people, couples, groups, or otherwise the opportunity to raise children, get whatever limited benefits are available for insurance, or whatever.
Yeah, there's the possiblility that a gay couple might scream discrimination if they are turned down for an adoption in favor of a hetero couple. Then again, how many children are out there waiting for adoption now that could find a home with an otherwise loving family if the courts allowed gay couples to adopt?
Where is the greatest good likely to come from?
Think about it.
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Holden McGroin: So you honestly believe that if a judge decided in favor of a hetero couple, in an otherwise entirely equal competition, then there would be no legal recourse for the gay couple blaming the judge for his homophobic decision.... okey dokey...
They could file an appeal - with another judge. They could "blame" the judge. I believe it is not possible to sue a judge.
The only possible reason for the above decision is obviously the judges perceptions that there may be some strife with the way society views the child's adoptive parents....
An it would be entirely correct. Everything else being equal, the child should be placed with a heterosexual couple to learn about the family life that he/she will be likely to lead him/herself.
Women are different than men and a family composed of a man and a woman presents a totally different dynamics than a homo-sexual couple. A male child would learn from his father how to deal with women and a girl would learn from her mother how to handle men. They would learn the role of a husband of a woman and the role of a wife of a man.
Of course for a homosexual child the homosexual couple would be much preferable - the parents would understand the child much better and he/she them.
That is my opinion only - the one I would exercise if I were a judge.
miko
-
If someone wants to make an absolute statement, I'd simply like absolute proof. So much gets stated as if fact, and won't be examined. I'm curious about this definitive proof, if it exists.
-
What funk said. Abolish all tax breaks and legislation dealing with the marriage. I see no point of government "certifing" and paying for people's delusions :)
Then if you want to get married, it's between you, your "other half" or whatever animal you fancy, and your religious type.
-
So Miko, we both agree that all else being equal that it would be better for a child to develop in a traditional family.
Therefore, as judges you and I would consider a gay union to not have equal rights to a traditional couple, as we would both then practice discrimination (choice) (all else being equal) in favor of the hetero couple and against the gay couple.
This is of course not to say that a gay couple cannot be good parents, it is just to state that society does have a preference.
I have yet to figure out how to identify a gay child.... I do not believe that if I were deciding the future of an adoptee that I would identify him/her as such in order to make the decision.
I know it is only a portion of the larger issue, but it is certainly an important issue to clarify when public policy is being changed. The law of unintended consequenses always rears it head in these situations.
-
Holden McGroin: So Miko, we both agree that all else being equal that it would be better for a child to develop in a traditional family.
For non-homosexual child - yes.
Therefore, as judges you and I would consider a gay union to not have equal rights to a traditional couple, as we would both then practice discrimination (choice) (all else being equal) in favor of the hetero couple and against the gay couple.
That's the major misconception which is the basis of liberal propaganda (not that I am accusion you of it, just as a side-note). It is based on the loose and wrong definition of terms that have very specific meanings.
They have equal rights - but not equal opportunities.
The homosexual people have equal right but not equal opportunity to show a heterosexual child how to handle him/herself in a kind of family he/she is likely to marry into.
Just like a deaf person has an equal right to teach singing but not an equal opportunity to do that well.
As for discrimination, humans always discriminate whenever we make any choice on any matter. It's the law that is not supposed to discriminate.
This is of course not to say that a gay couple cannot be good parents, it is just to state that society does have a preference.
Society's preferences do not matter here. It's the child's best interests that matter - the preferences his guardians have. With good guardians, the homosexuals will be at a natural disadvantage while adopting. Just like disabled or poor or uneducated people would be at a disadvantage while adopting.
The society does not re-write the laws of nature.
miko
-
Originally posted by stiehl
It's not as if they're going to turn the kids gay or something.
You are right.
"GAYS AND LESBIANS MAKE BAD PARENTS
“THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE FOR THIS PERCEPTION”
-- CANADIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
OTTAWA, AUGUST 6, 2003 – There is a popular misconception that gay and lesbian parents, because of their sexual orientation, compromise the psychological and sexual development of their children. A well-publicized statement of this point of view is found in a document recently released by the Vatican entitled “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”. This Vatican document states, in part: “As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these (homosexual) unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” (Section III.7)
Commenting on this statement, Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) President, Dr. Patrick O’Neill, said:
“Psychosocial research into lesbian and gay parenting indicates that there is no basis in the scientific literature for this perception. With the legalization of same-sex unions in Canada, the public and various interest groups 2 are revisiting their views on this issue and CPA is concerned that publicly stated beliefs, which impact upon legislation and social policy, are not always based on scientific evidence.
”According to CPA, the psychosocial research into lesbian and gay parenting indicates that there are essentially no differences in the psychosocial development, gender identity or sexual orientation between the children of gay or lesbian parents and the children of heterosexual parents.
These research findings lead the CPA to conclude:
1. Available evidence indicates that the children of gay and lesbian parents do not differ significantly from the children of heterosexual parents with regard to psychosocial and gender development and identity.
2. Statements that children of gay and lesbian parents have more and significant problems in the areas of psychosocial or gender development and identity than do the children of heterosexual
parents have no support from the scientific literature.
3. If gay and lesbian parents encounter unique stress as parents, it is more likely the result of the public’s beliefs and perceptions about their fitness to parent and obstacles created by social
systems (such as the courts) than it is the result of any deficiencies in their actual fitness to parent.
The American Psychological Association provides an annotated bibliography of research into lesbian and gay parenting at http://www.apa.org.
The recent Vatican document also argues against legalization of gay and lesbian unions. Dr. O’Neill restated
the Canadian Psychological Association opposition to discrimination against lesbians, gay men, their
relationships and their families.
In 1996, the Canadian Psychological Association adopted a policy that stated:
“The Canadian Psychological Association supports the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected ground of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, their relationships and their families in all human rights legislation, public policy, regulation, procedure and practice. The Canadian Psychological Association strongly opposes prejudice, bias and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas including spousal and family relationships, benefits and privileges, employment, goods, services, facilities, housing and accommodation.”
The Canadian Psychological Association is the national organization that represents the science, education and training, and practice of psychology in Canada. CPA has a membership of 5200 psychologists and students in psychology from all Canadian Provinces and Territories. Its objectives are to lead, advance and promote psychology as a science and as a profession for the benefit of humanity; to provide leadership in psychology in Canada; to promote a sense of identity among psychologists; to promote the advancement, dissemination, and practical application of psychological knowledge; to develop standards and ethical principles for education, training, science and practice
in psychology."
http://www.cpa.ca/documents/gayparenting%2Dcpa.pdf
-
Originally posted by fd ski
What funk said. Abolish all tax breaks and legislation dealing with the marriage.
How about just giving everyone the tax 'break' instead of abolishing it. Then it would become universal tax code, not a 'break' for the married few.
As for the secondary issue, I don't care what ya do. As long as it doesn't take away from my ability to do whatever I want to do.
-
Lazerus: How about just giving everyone the tax 'break' instead of abolishing it. Then it would become universal tax code, not a 'break' for the married few.
It's not just about open tax.
There are many regulations that mandate private businesses to subcidise married people at the expense of non-married ones. That is why gays want marriage status - so that they could get mandated benefits from private and municipal employers.
Do you know that a person can receive unemployment benefits (at least in NY state) not when he/she is fired but when he/she quits - if the spouse changes job location?
One would think it is a voluntary decision and a a spouse changing job should consider the effect on the job of the other spouse - and be responcible for it. But the tax payer is made responcible. Not many more claims could be made if not just a legal spouse but a wider wariety of partners could make such claim, etc.
miko
-
”According to CPA, the psychosocial research into lesbian and gay parenting indicates that there are essentially no differences in the psychosocial development, gender identity or sexual orientation between the children of gay or lesbian parents and the children of heterosexual parents.
Having a gay parent is not having gay parents, as in, being raised by a gay couple. The presumption I have here is there would be a heterosexual parent remaining. If behavior is largely determined by environment, which is the argument anti-death penalty folks like to argue, how can you argue environment would have nothing to do with sexuality? Before you drop the "genetic cause" line, remember, that is theory, not fact.
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.
To me it is much simpler; it is ludicrous to suggest mainstreaming a behavior won't increase its occurance.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
If two homosexuals think they can do a good job parenting, it's not the state's business to tell them that they can't.
There could be few problems.
What children see at home, they do consider it to be normal for quite long time.
Homosexual parents with Heterosexual childrent would be a bit messy for that children
Im not speaking about education or friendship here.
But i can imagine problems of heterosexual children in homesexual "family"
since they arent able to reproduce them self, some interaction with authority here is needed
i hope that marriedge will be permited world wide and i can finaly marry some pair of lesbians :D
-
Originally posted by maslo
There could be few problems.
What children see at home, they do consider it to be normal for quite long time.
Homosexual parents with Heterosexual childrent would be a bit messy for that children
Im not speaking about education or friendship here.
But i can imagine problems of heterosexual children in homesexual "family"
Are you alluding that homosexual parents will be more likely to molest their children? I hope you have some studies to back that up, along with the ones that say heterosexual parents are better because they never molest their children.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Are you alluding that homosexual parents will be more likely to molest their children? I hope you have some studies to back that up, along with the ones that say heterosexual parents are better because they never molest their children.
I think he is not saying that.
Role models are important.
The behavior of parents is the pattern that children emulate.
If you want your child to have a vocabulary of only four letter words, use that language around your kids. Spousal abuse begets spousal abusers. Dishonesty begets dishonesty. Honor begets honor.
While the tendency to homosexuality may have a genetic root, there is a lot which is behaviorally learned as well. Nature vs nurture has borderline which is very gray.
-
Besides wich one does the kids call mommy and wich one father?
Umm now thats a whole can of worms right there huh.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think he is not saying that.
Role models are important.
The behavior of parents is the pattern that children emulate.
If you want your child to have a vocabulary of only four letter words, use that language around your kids. Spousal abuse begets spousal abusers. Dishonesty begets dishonesty. Honor begets honor.
While the tendency to homosexuality may have a genetic root, there is a lot which is behaviorally learned as well. Nature vs nurture has borderline which is very gray.
Ok fair enough. So if the kid (either by genetics/nature/emulation of parents) has homosexual feelings what's wrong with the parents supporting, or even encouraging, the kid to address them instead of repressing them?
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.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Ok fair enough. So if the kid (either by genetics/nature/emulation of parents) has homosexual feelings what's wrong with the parents supporting, or even encouraging, the kid to address them instead of repressing them?
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.
Oh, absolutely.
Can you imagine the cries from people if it were even suggested straight parents should try to raise gay kids straight? But it's okay to raise straight kids gay, because it is inclusive?
Up is down, black is white.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Oh, absolutely.
Can you imagine the cries from people if it were even suggested straight parents should try to raise gay kids straight? But it's okay to raise straight kids gay, because it is inclusive?
Up is down, black is white.
No, you're missing my point entirely. I'm saying that the state shouldn't mandate any style of raising your children, or encourage one through marriage law, tax law, and social programs.
If you want to raise your straight kid as gay, go ahead. If you want to raise your gay kid as straight, go ahead. I may not approve of one or the other, but I don't want the government stepping in and taking action in either case.
-
Children emulate the behaviour pattern of their peers/friends, not their parents. Its their parents that have to correct their patterns.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Children emulate the behaviour pattern of their peers/friends, not their parents. Its their parents that have to correct their patterns.
-SW
In some ways, sure. But if I had mirrored the behavior patterns of my friends/peers, I wouldn't have my current GPA, and might not even be at a university.
If I had emulated my peers instead of my parents, I wouldn't be anywhere near where I am today.
Parents have the most influence on their children's lives, hands down. Peers have a large influence, sure, but who picks the child's peers? The parents, through their selection of an area to live in, their choice of schools, and their choice of activities to get their kid enrolled in.
-
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
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Children emulate the behaviour pattern of their peers/friends, not their parents. Its their parents that have to correct their patterns.
-SW
I guaran-frickin'-tee you that isn't wholly true. Friends have the greatest influence in a certain range of years, but in the early life, and the most formative years in a child's life, it's the parents, hands down.
-
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?"
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
oooops.....forgot..... :D
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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