|
Post by Lee on Jun 11, 2015 18:43:49 GMT -5
That's a tear-jerker. I don't think cohabiting gays should be allowed to adopt. Children should not be deprived of the contribution of both sexes, nor should they be injected into the normalization of gay behavior without their consent. All of the kids I know are part of a larger thriving community and are hardly growing up in a strictly same-sex environment. Yeah, too bad for you, these kids and their friends tend not to grow up believing the stereotypes you would like to perpetuate. You mean they tend to not grow up with the ideal of a man and a woman in love for life? What a shame!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 11, 2015 18:46:05 GMT -5
That's a tear-jerker. I don't think cohabiting gays should be allowed to adopt. Children should not be deprived of the contribution of both sexes, nor should they be injected into the normalization of gay behavior without their consent. Not an expert but I'm pretty sure that adoption agencies consider the background culture and traditions of the adoptee. Do you think it preferable that juvenile wards of the State be raised in motel rooms as they are in Manitoba, Canada or placed in homes that don't meet your ideal moral conception, that is the homes of L/G couples? Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 11, 2015 18:55:21 GMT -5
All of the kids I know are part of a larger thriving community and are hardly growing up in a strictly same-sex environment. Yeah, too bad for you, these kids and their friends tend not to grow up believing the stereotypes you would like to perpetuate. You mean they tend not to grow up with the ideal of a man and a woman in love for life? What a shame! And yet, somehow, a majority of them--a majority representative of society at large--end up in heterosexual marriages. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 11, 2015 19:02:35 GMT -5
Gay behavior has a history of getting out of hand. Heterosexuality should be culturally celebrated, and every culture that celebrates it will be exalted.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 0:05:48 GMT -5
No desire to discuss anything with you on account of your vigilant denial of The Creator. That is one method often used to avoid having to answer questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 0:09:08 GMT -5
All of the kids I know are part of a larger thriving community and are hardly growing up in a strictly same-sex environment. Yeah, too bad for you, these kids and their friends tend not to grow up believing the stereotypes you would like to perpetuate. You mean they tend to not grow up with the ideal of a man and a woman in love for life? What a shame! Had you done any research at all you would have learned that the children raised by same sex parents are just as likely to enter into a heterosexual relationship as you were. The difference is that they can be in a heterosexual relationship without condemning those who have a different relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 0:15:26 GMT -5
Gay behavior has a history of getting out of hand. I wonder if this was come sort of an unconsciousness slip?? Exalted by whom? I also believe heterosexuality should be celebrated. And homosexuality as well. Any kind of relationship that brings people together in a loving relationship should be held in the highest regard. It would be interesting to know what a person who believes in a creator thinks the creator has against homosexual relationships.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 12, 2015 2:00:56 GMT -5
Not an expert but I'm pretty sure that adoption agencies consider the background culture and traditions of the adoptee. Do you think it preferable that juvenile wards of the State be raised in motel rooms as they are in Manitoba, Canada or placed in homes that don't meet your ideal moral conception, that is the homes of L/G couples? Two wrongs don't make a right. How about the children of L/G couples who were born to them in previous marriages?
I know couples who had children before & are now raising their children together.
Do you think that those children should have been taken away from them and adopted out to hetero couples?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 12, 2015 2:07:07 GMT -5
You mean they tend not to grow up with the ideal of a man and a woman in love for life? What a shame! And yet, somehow, a majority of them--a majority representative of society at large--end up in heterosexual marriages. Weird. The biggest problem I see, Gene, is heterosexual couples having children that grow up and are homosexual! I really think that we should stop that and RIGHT NOW!
It isn't the fault of the gays, it's their parents fault!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 4:36:53 GMT -5
Some of my best friends over the years have been gays. My problem with the "gay marriage" is:
1 - Seeing all these people come out in "support" of gay marriage when twenty years ago they were nowhere to be seen. If I am "sexist" today for not supporting "gay marriage" were they "sexist" back then?
2 - the outright denial of many gay groups that they sought "gay marriage" a generation ago.
3 - the outright denial by some church groups they had a "gay marriage" agenda - which they now actually have.
4 - the speed with which social norms can be turned on their head. This "gay marriage" thing took a generation to go from opprobrium to acceptance. One wonders what social norm will be next ripe for overturning.
5 - the growing cultural divide between pro-gay and anti-gay societies. Imagine how the "gay marriage" issue has gone down in Russia or the Islamic world.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 12, 2015 6:00:12 GMT -5
Some of my best friends over the years have been gays. ...and yet you refer to them as "gays". Movements sometimes involve rapid shifts in point of view among "all these people". In this case, I think people suddenly "get it" who didn't before. Which groups? "Gay marriage" is only one of myriad issues. There have been a variety of opinions expressed over the years by various people (some in the same "gay group") about what the priorities ought to be in the fight for civil and human rights. This seems reasonable to me in a situation in which attitudes have changed over time. IMO, the struggle that resulted in people coming out of the closet has been the biggest factor in the rapid growth in acceptance. Once people realize they know and love someone who is gay, it becomes much more difficult for the "haters" to perpetuate negative stereotypes. Would you send your "best friends" back into the closet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 6:06:09 GMT -5
Quote - "Movements sometimes involve rapid shifts in point of view among "all these people". In this case, I think people suddenly "get it" who didn't before.
Matisse - when did YOU "get it." ? Can you think of any other sexual disposition that can be legalized under the guise of human rights? Polygamy? Weekend marriage? Pederasty? Polyandry? What will such "rights" do to women and children in particular? And while we are indulging in social experimentation, who's going to bring the next generation of kids into our society to keep it running, large immigrant populations of Muslims?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 7:20:40 GMT -5
Some of my best friends over the years have been gays. My problem with the "gay marriage" is:
1 - Seeing all these people come out in "support" of gay marriage when twenty years ago they were nowhere to be seen. If I am "sexist" today for not supporting "gay marriage" were they "sexist" back then?
2 - the outright denial of many gay groups that they sought "gay marriage" a generation ago.
3 - the outright denial by some church groups they had a "gay marriage" agenda - which they now actually have.
4 - the speed with which social norms can be turned on their head. This "gay marriage" thing took a generation to go from opprobrium to acceptance. One wonders what social norm will be next ripe for overturning.
5 - the growing cultural divide between pro-gay and anti-gay societies. Imagine how the "gay marriage" issue has gone down in Russia or the Islamic world. Change is difficult for some. It is feared by others. When women were considered chattel by society no one was considered sexist because they did not support women living on their own. When slaves were considered less than human it was not a race issue. Your examples are just pointing out that society's views evolve and change over time. Socrates expressed his fears regarding the changes he was seeing in society and now you are as well. You are in good company but in all cases society will somehow get through it and come out OK on the other side. You don't have to endorse the change of follow along if you are uncomfortable!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 7:40:41 GMT -5
No, not all changes are good at all. Take for instance the rise of nationalism in Europe (recall Europe was essentially one nation under the Roman and Roman Catholic empires)and where that led to in the last three centuries. I don't see much good coming out of the rise in our narcotic culture, either. Or half of our children in broken homes. Or the rising phenomena of people living alone. Or the collapse of the birth rate in Europe, Japan etc. and what that means for our future. Or the rise of pornography and the sexualization of our culture, and its impact upon children and relationships. etc..
None of these things spell the end of the world. We just get used to them.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 12, 2015 7:51:47 GMT -5
Quote - "Movements sometimes involve rapid shifts in point of view among "all these people". In this case, I think people suddenly "get it" who didn't before. Matisse - when did YOU "get it." ?I was in my early 30's. I learned that some of my friends were/are gay. That was back in a more closeted time. Today is the 48th anniversary of Loving v. (the State of) Virginia, a U.S. Supreme Court decision which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Christians (not all) argued that interracial marriage was against "the natural order established by God." Many of the same arguments made against interracial marriage parallel arguments made against gay marriage. Polygamy is documented and sanctioned in the "Old Testament" of your Bible. The capture and rape/forced marriage of women and girls are, too. Yet, here we are - The Human Race - somehow still surviving, despite the atrocities recommended by your "Good Book." Don'T worry about raising up the next generation of children. Nobody is advocating for heterosexual sex to be outlawed, the vast majority of humans continue to be heterosexual, and even gay and lesbian people are pitching in and doing their part.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 8:55:20 GMT -5
No, not all changes are good at all. No they are not. Or they may not appear to be good but over time they continue to exist because they do represent a change for the better. Not having all of Europe under the RCC is a huge benefit for the people who actually live there and while the period of adjustment might have been painful it would be difficult to show that things would be better without the change. If we actually had a narcotic culture I would agree. Living alone and being content is better than staying married and being unhappy. It is a benefit for the adults and the children. People staying together for the 'sake of the children' were not benefiting themselves or the children. What do you think it means to our future? Fewer people? The birth rate in other societies is going up so the number of people/overall population growth remains is quite constant. What is your fear regarding this? But you failed to mention that the increase of pornography ands resulted in a decrease in sex crimes, including rape and CSA. I am not sure if pornography is the issue of the abnormal way that various religions have forced people to deal with sex. Nature does not abhor nudity. Reproduction is a normal biological function. Religion is not solving any problems regarding issues relating to sex. It impedes and distorts the part that natural selection and evolution would have followed.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 12, 2015 14:52:53 GMT -5
Some of my best friends over the years have been gays. My problem with the "gay marriage" is:
1 - Seeing all these people come out in "support" of gay marriage when twenty years ago they were nowhere to be seen. If I am "sexist" today for not supporting "gay marriage" were they "sexist" back then?
2 - the outright denial of many gay groups that they sought "gay marriage" a generation ago.
3 - the outright denial by some church groups they had a "gay marriage" agenda - which they now actually have.
4 - the speed with which social norms can be turned on their head. This "gay marriage" thing took a generation to go from opprobrium to acceptance. One wonders what social norm will be next ripe for overturning.
5 - the growing cultural divide between pro-gay and anti-gay societies. Imagine how the "gay marriage" issue has gone down in Russia or the Islamic world. So you really aren't against gay marriage, more you just don't agree with change?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 12, 2015 14:56:21 GMT -5
Not an expert but I'm pretty sure that adoption agencies consider the background culture and traditions of the adoptee. Do you think it preferable that juvenile wards of the State be raised in motel rooms as they are in Manitoba, Canada or placed in homes that don't meet your ideal moral conception, that is the homes of L/G couples? Two wrongs don't make a right. Why does it seem like you just love to hate Lee? Love should be what matters not gender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 18:14:11 GMT -5
There's this phenomena I will call "The Final Taboo" Notice it here in Australia with Aborigines - voting rights for Aborigines was the final taboo. and then land rights was the final taboo. then a national apology to them was the final taboo and recently I heard an aboriginal saying that adding a "preamble" to the Australian constitution recognizing their part in the nation was the removing of the final taboo. Each time the cause seems quite plausible. Indeed, our former Prime Minister Howard is on the front of today's Australian newspaper, urging people to consider the "fairness" of this preamble.
And everything will then good for the poor Aborigines. Which is actually the opposite.
I don't know if a constitutional preamble recognizing Aborigines is "fair" or not - I just feel it's fair enough to say we are being taken for a slow ride, and we have no idea where we are going because there are NO FINAL TABOOS.
And that happens with the sexualization of our society. Not long ago people were picketing beauty pageants for minors - it's all a storm in a teacup now. I told people at the time, "Give it ten years."
IMO "gay marriage" isn't about gay marriage. It's just another part of an on-going process - an attitude of doing what I want, how I want, when I damn well want, and you aren't going to moralize or preach to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 18:32:35 GMT -5
Bert quote - "Take for instance the rise of nationalism in Europe (recall Europe was essentially one nation under the Roman and Roman Catholic empires)and where that led to in the last three centuries." Rational quote - "Not having all of Europe under the RCC is a huge benefit for the people who actually live there and while the period of adjustment might have been painful it would be difficult to show that things would be better without the change."
That "period of adjustment" led to centuries of war, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred million lives. And Europe hasn't progressed one bit as a result of it. These people once all considered themselves "European" until the rise of nationalism.
Bert quote - I don't see much good coming out of the rise in our narcotic culture, either. Rational quote - If we actually had a narcotic culture I would agree.
Can't you see a narcotic culture? Dope? Meth? Ice?
Bert quote - Or half of our children in broken homes. Or the rising phenomena of people living alone.
Rational quote - "Living alone and being content is better than staying married and being unhappy. It is a benefit for the adults and the children. People staying together for the 'sake of the children' were not benefiting themselves or the children.
I disagree. Also, part of the reason for being "unhappy" ITSELF is a result of modernity and the growing culture of the self.
Bert quote - "Or the collapse of the birth rate in Europe, Japan etc. and what that means for our future." Rational quote - "What do you think it means to our future? Fewer people? The birth rate in other societies is going up so the number of people/overall population growth remains is quite constant. What is your fear regarding this?
What that means is that rich nations have to open their doors to billions (not millions) of third world people. People who in many cases don't share Western values, such as the ones you are defending.
Bert quote - "Or the rise of pornography and the sexualization of our culture, and its impact upon children and relationships.etc.. Rational quote - "But you failed to mention that the increase of pornography ands resulted in a decrease in sex crimes, including rape and CSA."
In some Australian schools they are running courses to teach primary school boys to respect girls - that girls aren't sex objects like these boys see on TV or their smart phones. In my generation that was stating the obvious. Just wait till you see the impact head-mounted virtual reality will have, starting next year.
Rational quote - "I am not sure if pornography is the issue of the abnormal way that various religions have forced people to deal with sex. Nature does not abhor nudity. Reproduction is a normal biological function. Religion is not solving any problems regarding issues relating to sex. It impedes and distorts the part that natural selection and evolution would have followed."
Religion set boundaries to behavior. Today people find boundaries confronting. In Christianity you couldn't marry your daughter, or have two wives, or tolerate prostitution, or revel in carnal images and the like. In my country thousands of men go on "sex holidays" now to Thailand or the Philippines. In my workplace a dozen at a time would do this on package tours, and brag about it. Can you tell me what that does to those particular people, their wives, or the girls and boys they have sex with?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2015 21:13:19 GMT -5
Bert quote - "Take for instance the rise of nationalism in Europe (recall Europe was essentially one nation under the Roman and Roman Catholic empires)and where that led to in the last three centuries." Rational quote - "Not having all of Europe under the RCC is a huge benefit for the people who actually live there and while the period of adjustment might have been painful it would be difficult to show that things would be better without the change." That "period of adjustment" led to centuries of war, resulting in the deaths of over a hundred million lives. And Europe hasn't progressed one bit as a result of it. These people once all considered themselves "European" until the rise of nationalism.First, these people did not all consider themselves to be European. Just in Germany, for example, there were the Franks, Saxons, Huns, etc. And there were wars and deaths. Perhaps Europe has not progressed but the individual countries have. The downfall was in trying to bring them all together again. Which of those do you consider to be a narcotic? Can you provide references? I do not share your fear of third world country's people overrunning any country. There has been pornography since people drew on cave walls. As sex was repressed by various religions there was an increase in pornography. In your day do you really think women were not considered sex objects? Even the bible shows the sexualization of women. I am not sure what you think head mounted VR systems are going to do. Religion may set the boundaries but it does not, as you pointed our, modify behavior. I am guessing whatever these people seek brings them physical/emotional/psychological pleasure that they cannot experience in the repressive society where they live. On the other hand sex tourists are on the wane.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 13, 2015 10:26:25 GMT -5
Two wrongs don't make a right. Why does it seem like you just love to hate Lee? Love should be what matters not gender. The opposite of love isn't hate but indifference.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jun 13, 2015 10:28:47 GMT -5
Two wrongs don't make a right. How about the children of L/G couples who were born to them in previous marriages?
I know couples who had children before & are now raising their children together.
Do you think that those children should have been taken away from them and adopted out to hetero couples?
If they insist on living together.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 13, 2015 10:35:34 GMT -5
Why does it seem like you just love to hate Lee? Love should be what matters not gender. The opposite of love isn't hate but indifference. and your point is? are you saying you're indifferent then?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 13, 2015 14:07:44 GMT -5
How about the children of L/G couples who were born to them in previous marriages?
I know couples who had children before & are now raising their children together.
Do you think that those children should have been taken away from them and adopted out to hetero couples?
If they insist on living together. Mr Lee, I'm afraid the moral center of your brain has spent a little too much time in the Fryer.
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jun 13, 2015 20:08:55 GMT -5
Wow didn't realize there were so many bigots on this board. How does homosexual marriage affect you and your spouse? Doesn't bother my marriage in the least. How many wife's or concubines Did Abraham, David Sampson etc have? Why should a deceased spouses in a hetero marriage be passed to a spouse u encumber, but not a surviving homo couple? Why should employer paid health insurance be taxed for a homo couple but not a hetero. The USSC isn't going to impose anything, but hopefully they will right a wrong
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 22:50:05 GMT -5
Wow didn't realize there were so many bigots on this board. How does homosexual marriage affect you and your spouse? Doesn't bother my marriage in the least. How many wife's or concubines Did Abraham, David Sampson etc have? Why should a deceased spouses in a hetero marriage be passed to a spouse u encumber, but not a surviving homo couple? Why should employer paid health insurance be taxed for a homo couple but not a hetero. The USSC isn't going to impose anything, but hopefully they will right a wrong when you start off your post with name calling it doesn't make your argument that credible...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 14, 2015 0:13:16 GMT -5
Sometimes the truth is hard to accept Wally ! I agree with Terry ! How does homosexual marriage affect you or anyone else for that matter ?
|
|