Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

00timh wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: 00timh wrote: I also would like to add that if you think you have it bad now, would you have rather been alive 100...even 50 years ago. You might want to think about this.
And black people were better off under segregation than they were when slavery was still in full force.

The point being, telling me I should be grateful for what I have doesn't stop me from wanting what I deserve - society's recognition of my full personhood and acknowledgement of my rights.

(And don't go trying to construe this as my comparing the oppression of people of color to the struggles of gay people - that would be insulting to both groups and not at all what's intended.) Nope, just showing the reality of progress. Black people were better off under segregation than lsavery, but are better off now than they were in segregation.

The same holds true with homosexuals. You are better off than you were 50 years ago and you will be better off 50 years from now If incrementalization is allowed to continue.
If we allow the nation to continue on it's current course - the incremental dismantling of gay rights - we likely will not be better off 50 years from now.

[F'losrix]

Here's a link that shows what gay families really look like. Only going to be working for a limited time, so visit while you can:

Edit: I've removed the URL because as noted above, it was only valid for a limited time, and has since expired.

[Gryff1nd0r]

I'm ignorant on this subject. What is the currernt law on same-sex couples adopting children?

[Luigidel]

First of all, I am not a homophobe. I also am not in any way morally influenced on this subject seeing as that I'm an Aethiest, so you can disregard those two arguments right there. I also have gay friends, one of which is my best friend-He feels exactly the same way as me on this. So don't even say that all homosexuals are supporters of gay marriage, or gay adoption. In the previous forum, which is still near the top of the list, i posted links to several sites with information on the subject, some of which describes negative effects of children, so don't give me the my argument is unsupported BS. Being a Highschool senior, i believe i would understand the effect being raised in a gay household would have on a child. I would like to reitterate that I AM NOT A HOMOPHOBE first, however, so i will not be accepting it.

A kid raised in a homosexual household is not being raised in a truly healthy environment. A child raised in such an environment will be subject to the attacks from everryone of his peers. It is a fact that we do live in a homophobic society, don't disregard that, in fact, you have been trying to prove that all along. I AGREE. So where does it say that we should disregard this fact, and go along granting freedoms beecause they seem moral and right, while in the real world, the theories don't apply. Kids should not have to be bullied because of homosexual parents, but they will be anyway-every day of their life up until college, if not later than that. So why do we allow it to happen?
I believe it was Shim who said
"if teachers and school staff acctually did their JOB and TAUGHT kids that they need to respect others, and punished them when they tease, humiliation and tormentation by peers would be a NONISSUE. The real issue here is the scourge of homophobia in schools, which is oftentimes not stopped by teachers and even perpetuated by teachers, using this as an arguement against gay parenthood is just plain wrong. "

No, you are wrong. Period. Bullying cannot be stopped, no matter how you think it should work in your perfect little socialist world, the real world does not work that way. Kids will always pick on those with disadvaantages, they will always tease, they will always bully. If they get ahold of something like a kid has gay parents, there will be nothing stopping them. So seeing as the "scourge of homophobia in schools" cannot, in reality, be stopped, especially not in today's society, what is wrong about using it in an argument against gay parenthood? Its factual information, last time i checked, factual information could be used as evidence, which can be used to prove a point or win a case.

All that aside, seeing as your next argument would probably be to suggest homeschooling, i would like to discuss that solution. I homeschooled child, or any other child isolated from the real world, and from interaction from his or her peers, is definitely not healthy. How would a child learn to function in a semi-real world environmet if the majority of their life takes place in the security and the comfort of their own home? The fact is they don't, so therefore that would not be a valid argument.

On the subject of gay marriage-a gay household should not exist in the first place. If a couple marry, it should be to procreate. That is the reasone for marriage. I am in no way religious, but matrimony is a religious ceremony. Seeing as that gays contradict most religions beliefs, there should be no need for marriage, other than tax breaks or laws. Why should people be marrying for tax breaks or laws, defiling a ceremony held sacred to the majority of this country. It is unnatural, and just not right. THat is not in my opinion, that is in the opinion of nature itself. Gay people are unable to naturally produce, what is te logic behind bypassing this hindrance in the first place, obviously its there for a reason. Homosexual couples should not foster offspring.

Don't start with the BS about comparing Homosexal relationships to bad heterosexual relationships either. I realize that heterosexual relationships can go wrong and leave children scarred for life. That's not the issue here. Being a child of heterosexual parents in itself does not make you a target of ridicule for your peers. It does not leave you with twisted ideas of marriage, and is not likely to leave you homosexual as your parents, simply because that's the only thing you've ever been taught. Being raised in a homosexual environment would leave you with a skewed view of things, it is definitely not a NATURAL childhood, as i have pointed out that biologically it shouldn't be able to happen anyway.

In reality, many studies contradict each other on this issue. I will give you that much. There is no clear cut statistic that says that gay paenting hurts kids, but there is not overwhelming evidence that it doesn't either. However, if you ration it out, logic says that it shouldn't be able to happen.

Being a gay parent, with the exception of parenting kids you procreated in a past, heterosexual relationship, is a very selfish decision. In some cases, where having a gay parent was the best choice over a previous, failed, abusive parent, it could almost be understandable. It is selfish, however, to adopt a kid into your homosexual lifestyle, who has no business there. yhou are depriving them of a normal life, a normal childhood, and a truly healthy environment. You are subjecting them to the attacks of "every kid o the playground" and constant humiliation. Why would any civil, empathetic, and sensitive human being, much less a PARENT, do this to another person?

I would finally like to iterate that no matter how noble a standpoint, or how fair you try to make life for everyone, it never will be. You can create laws fo an ideal world, which would in this case, allow for gay parenting, but you always have to face he harsh reality in the end. We live in a society where the majority does not accept this type of union. You can not force a higher view point on lower thinkers of society. History shows us that this never works out. Why would you use your high and righteous view n the matter to allow a type of family that would, in the end, produce a negative childhood for the kid. You cant.

I would love to continue this discussion, but it is midnight, and i havent slept in days, and school is tomorrow. I promise i will repost on this topic tomorrow if people continue to respond.

[F'losrix]

thegriffinator13 wrote: I'm ignorant on this subject. What is the currernt law on same-sex couples adopting children?
It's a matter of state law, so it depends on the specific state.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: thegriffinator13 wrote: I'm ignorant on this subject. What is the currernt law on same-sex couples adopting children?
It's a matter of state law, so it depends on the specific state.

Do you know generally what the break down is? Like do half the states ban it, 3/4, etc.?

[F'losrix]

Luigidel - I find a lot of this post repetitive of your original assertions. Since you didn't respond at all to my post answering your initial post, I have to conclude that you aren't actually here to debate, just to spew and spout. Nonetheless, I'll answer you again.

Luigidel wrote: I also am not in any way morally influenced on this subject seeing as that I'm an Aethiest
Being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't morally influenced or that you won't attempt to use moral arguments; it only means they may not have the same basis as someone of religious faith.

Quote: I also have gay friends, one of which is my best friend-He feels exactly the same way as me on this.
Your gay friend's opinion is frankly irrelevant.

Quote: So don't even say that all homosexuals are supporters of gay marriage, or gay adoption.
I never have and I never will, because I understand that ours is a diverse community with diversity of opinion.

Quote: In the previous forum, which is still near the top of the list, i posted links to several sites with information on the subject, some of which describes negative effects of children, so don't give me the my argument is unsupported BS.
I'll make whatever arguments I deem to be relevant. And I couldn't care less what you posted in another thread. If you want to use those links as evidence here, you're going to have to repost them - it's unreasonable to expect us to go searching for them.

Furthermore, the fact that you posted links from several sites with information condemning the practice of adoption by households headed by gay couples isn't necessarily sufficient, as it's entirely possible that you searched around for links that supported your biased opinion while ignoring other sources expressing a different view. I guess we won't know until you make the effort to repost the links, will we?

Quote: Being a Highschool senior, i believe i would understand the effect being raised in a gay household would have on a child.
BS. Being a high school senior doesn't qualify you as having any greater understanding of the issue than anyone else.

Quote: A kid raised in a homosexual household is not being raised in a truly healthy environment.
What about that environment do you assert to be unhealthy?

Quote: A child raised in such an environment will be subject to the attacks from everryone of his peers.
False statement. The child may be subject to attack from some bullies, but not from every one of his peers. Some may actually come to his defense. I know this to be fact from personal experience. All you have is conjecture and exaggeration.

Quote: It is a fact that we do live in a homophobic society, don't disregard that, in fact, you have been trying to prove that all along. I AGREE. So where does it say that we should disregard this fact, and go along granting freedoms beecause they seem moral and right, while in the real world, the theories don't apply.
Based on that reasoning, I would assert that we shouldn't bother doing anything that seems moral or right, since the real world apparently isn't. In which case your argument fails outright - there would be no obligation for us to prevent gay adoption because whether or not doing so seems moral and right, in the real world, the theory doesn't apply. Trying to prevent a child from experiencing harassment and the emotional or physical harm that may stem from that is necessarily based on a moral imperative - a duty to prevent harm. You're trying to use an argument that states moral imperatives don't matter in the real world as support for something that would be a moral imperative. It's a paradox that renders your argument nonsensical.

Quote: So seeing as the "scourge of homophobia in schools" cannot, in reality, be stopped, especially not in today's society, what is wrong about using it in an argument against gay parenthood? Its factual information, last time i checked, factual information could be used as evidence, which can be used to prove a point or win a case.
We can't prevent kids who are the product of interracial marriages from being teased or harassed at school either. Would you consider that a valid argument for preventing interracial marriages?

It isn't practical for us to prevent parents whose children might be teased for some characteristic of that household from being married, procreating or adopting children. You want to make homosexual couples a 'special case'. The trouble is, almost any situation that produces a similar result could then be argued to be a 'special case' that should be singled out. The court's have concluded that generally speaking, laws that target an entire class of people are suspect and subject to stricter scrutiny than other laws. In Romer v. Evans, the court found that homosexuals can be considered to be a class of people and that laws targeting their rights, (in other words, treating them as a special case) are suspect and subject to this strict scrutiny.

Quote: On the subject of gay marriage-a gay household should not exist in the first place. If a couple marry, it should be to procreate. That is the reasone for marriage.
Then I say we shouldn't grant anyone a marriage license until they can pass a fertility test and affirm in writing their intention to fulfill this duty to procreate within a specific time frame; with the understanding that failing to do so will result in voiding their marriage.

If marriage was about procreation, we would have much stricter laws regulating its recognition. I've been to a number of weddings in my lifetime, and I can assure that in most Christian ceremonies children are only mentioned in passing as a possibility - not emphasized as the primary purpose of marriage.

Quote: I am in no way religious, but matrimony is a religious ceremony.
It can have a religious element, but none is required for the government to recognize a union as marital in nature. A wedding doesn't even have to be performed by a person of religious authority - that's only necessary for it to be recognized within the specific church; it has no effect on the government's recognition.

Quote: Seeing as that gays contradict most religions beliefs, there should be no need for marriage, other than tax breaks or laws.
Read the First Amendment. Our nation guarantees freedom of religious belief; it doesn't make our laws subservient to majority religious belief.

If you believe that marriage absent a religious element is only about tax breaks & benefits, then you have a very poor understanding of what marriage is really about, both in the modern world and the ancient. At it's core, marriage is about two mutually consenting, competent adults uniting to form a family unit - one which may or may not at some point include children, which are a secondary consideration, not primary. They do so for the purpose of providing each other with mutual support that can be practical, emotional or economic in nature. But this is a modern definition of marriage, in which we often consider love to be an important factor. Historically speaking, love was not required for marriage, as it was often a contract between two men - the groom and the bride's father - the bride often had little say in the matter and may not have even met her husband prior to the wedding; it was, in short, initiated as a business arrangement, the parameters of which varied from culture to culture. And this remains the practice in some parts of the world even today.

Quote: Why should people be marrying for tax breaks or laws, defiling a ceremony held sacred to the majority of this country.
How very insulting. I can assure you that many gay couples do consider their marriages to be sacred and blessed. And I'd question whether the majority in this country actually do consider it sacred anymore though, given that the heterosexual divorce rate is over 50%.

Quote: It is unnatural and just not right. THat is not in my opinion, that is in the opinion of nature itself.
Total BS. 'Nature' doesn't have an opinion about anything; only people have opinions, and opinions are not facts.

What proof will you offer us that homosexuality is 'unnatural', I wonder?

Quote: Gay people are unable to naturally produce, what is te logic behind bypassing this hindrance in the first place, obviously its there for a reason. Homosexual couples should not foster offspring.
By your reasoning, neither should infertile heterosexuals.

Quote: Being a child of heterosexual parents in itself does not make you a target of ridicule for your peers.
Neither does being a child of homosexual parents. What makes them a target is the fear, misunderstanding and outright hatred of homosexuals practiced by our society, not the quality of having gay parents itself.

Quote: It does not leave you with twisted ideas of marriage, and is not likely to leave you homosexual as your parents, simply because that's the only thing you've ever been taught.
There is no basis for such an assertion. Children & their parents don't live in a vaccuum. Children will get their ideas about marriage from many sources, not just their parents. Nor is it reasonable to assume that a gay couple will teach their children to have 'twisted ideas' about marriage, unless you posit as fact your unproved assertion that gay marriage is a twisted idea. In other words, you're trying to make a circular argument, using your base premise as the conclusion.

You're also ignoring the fact that most homosexuals come from heterosexual households - there is no credible scientific support for the idea that gay parents raise children to be homosexual. None.

Quote: Being raised in a homosexual environment would leave you with a skewed view of things, it is definitely not a NATURAL childhood, as i have pointed out that biologically it shouldn't be able to happen anyway.
Do heterosexuals all raise their children the same way, with the same views? I would have to say emphatically 'no'. That skewed view you speak of just might be one that teaches tolerance for peoples differences. What a scary thought - we can't have people learning not to hate everyone who is different from them in some way. What would happen to society? [end sarcasm]

Quote: In reality, many studies contradict each other on this issue. I will give you that much. There is no clear cut statistic that says that gay paenting hurts kids, but there is not overwhelming evidence that it doesn't either.
Finally, a brief moment of sanity. If there's no definitive proof either way, you have no solid argument for preventing it then. Doubt does not logically lead to an affirmative or negative conclusion - it only leads to doubt.

Quote: However, if you ration it out, logic says that it shouldn't be able to happen.
Logic doesn't say any such thing. You're the one saying it, and it's just your opinion, not proved fact.

Quote: Being a gay parent, with the exception of parenting kids you procreated in a past, heterosexual relationship, is a very selfish decision.
The decision to create a life and be responsible for it, nurturing that child until it reaches adulthood is selfish? No, I'd say trying to boss couples around in their family planning decisions just because you don't like homosexuality is what's selfish. And I don't buy all of your 'I'm not homophobic' crap. You may not be conscious of it, but if you didn't posess at least some fear or loathing of homosexuality and its impact on society, you wouldn't be spending your time in this forum making arguments against it. You'd simply have no reason to do so.

Quote: In some cases, where having a gay parent was the best choice over a previous, failed, abusive parent, it could almost be understandable. It is selfish, however, to adopt a kid into your homosexual lifestyle, who has no business there.
So we should let the kids that homosexuals would adopt just languish in group homes, then? Because it is a FACT that there are more kids needing adoption than there are qualified applicants to adopt them.

Quote: yhou are depriving them of a normal life, a normal childhood, and a truly healthy environment.
Outrageous, unsupportable statements. By making these kinds of outlandish assertions, you help perpetuate the attitudes that promote anti-gay attacks. If you don't want kids to face anti-gay harassment, then you'd be better of advocating against homophobia, not promoting it as it relates to the parenting of children by gay couples.

Quote: You are subjecting them to the attacks of "every kid o the playground" and constant humiliation.
Exaggeration and misdirected blame.

Quote: Why would any civil, empathetic, and sensitive human being, much less a PARENT, do this to another person?
Why would any civil, empathetic and sensitive human being undertake such a nasty argument to bash gay parents?

Quote: I would finally like to iterate that no matter how noble a standpoint, or how fair you try to make life for everyone, it never will be.
That's not an argument that supports us abandoning the effort to make things better.

Quote: You can create laws fo an ideal world, which would in this case, allow for gay parenting, but you always have to face he harsh reality in the end.
A harsh reality that you're seeking to perpetuate, not combat.

Quote: We live in a society where the majority does not accept this type of union. You can not force a higher view point on lower thinkers of society. History shows us that this never works out. Why would you use your high and righteous view n the matter to allow a type of family that would, in the end, produce a negative childhood for the kid. You cant.
Again assuming facts not in evidence. You tell us there's no definite proof either way then argue as if there were. That amounts to you using your high and mighty self-righteous opinion (and it is such, whether or not it's based in religion) to argue in support of society's 'lower thinkers'.

Quote: I would love to continue this discussion, but it is midnight, and i havent slept in days, and school is tomorrow. I promise i will repost on this topic tomorrow if people continue to respond.
I have expended considerable time and effort to respond to your post. You could at least extend me the same courtesy this time. If you fail, and just repost the same ideas without actually engaging me or others in debate, I will deem this a troll thread and make the request to have it locked. Your choice.

[F'losrix]

thegriffinator13 wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: thegriffinator13 wrote: I'm ignorant on this subject. What is the currernt law on same-sex couples adopting children?
It's a matter of state law, so it depends on the specific state.

Do you know generally what the break down is? Like do half the states ban it, 3/4, etc.?
No, I don't - it would require me to do considerable research that I don't have time for right now. If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that most don't prevent it as a matter of law. For those that do, I'd also hazzard a guess that the law only restricts this with regard to children who are already wards of the state; that the state has no such deep-reaching authority over privately arranged adoptions.

[F'losrix]

Actually, it was easier to find than I expected:

Six states limit the right of gay men, lesbians, or same-sex couples to adopt or foster parent. Due in part to Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign that overthrew Miami-Dade County's sexual orientation nondiscrimination law in 1977, Florida has explicitly banned adoptions by "homosexuals" for more than a quarter century. Utah prohibits adoption by a person who is cohabitating (defined as residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person) in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under Utah law. Because Utah law bans same-sex couples from marrying, same-sex couples cannot adopt, nor can individuals living with their same-sex partner. Mississippi bans "same-sex couples" from adopting. While Arkansas does not prohibit gays from adopting, since 1999 its Child Welfare Agency Review Board has banned gays and lesbians from foster parenting. In 2003 North Dakota passed a law targeting gay adoption that allows agencies that receive state contacts and licenses to refuse to place children with prospective parents to whom they object to on religious grounds. Oklahoma passed an anti-gay adoption law in May 2004.

Many states allow gay men or lesbians to adopt as single parents, but have no provision for gay couples to adopt.

Joint adoption is currently available in the District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Vermont, and has been granted at the trial court level in other jurisdictions. Second parent adoptions have been used since 1985, when Alaska granted what was probably the first same-sex second parent adoption. Since the mid-1980s courts in 20 other states have approved second parent adoptions involving a same-sex partner, and laws in three states explicitly permit adoption by a same-sex partner.

Caveat: While the source cited may be biased as to gay issues in general, what I've posted here should be factual and I invite corrections if you discover errors; just please cite your contradicting source so we can make an objective examination of both. I'm not sure how current the above information is.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=30

[Luigidel]

I'm sorry skeptical mystic if you didn't find my last post to be inthe great spirit of debate, but please do not threaten me into reposting with the threat of locking the thread. My last attempt at this topic was locked beacause people began to personally attack each other, if i didnt want an actual debate, i wouldn't have reposted would I?

First of all, being in highschool myself, I think that I have a relatively good understanding about the effects being raised in a same-sex household would have on a child, i witness it every day.

[/quote]False statement. The child may be subject to attack from some bullies, but not from every one of his peers. Some may actually come to his defense. I know this to be fact from personal experience. All you have is conjecture and exaggeration.
Quote:

I do know from personal experience, having seen the attitudes expressed by individuals in the school, and afterschoool environment, in every aspect of the teenage life. i can assure you that most kids would not be able to "fully" accept them, an those whp came to his defense would be vastly outnumbered, and targeted themselves. Having defended my gay friends many times, i know how this works personally.

Based on that reasoning, I would assert that we shouldn't bother doing anything that seems moral or right, since the real world apparently isn't. In which case your argument fails outright - there would be no obligation for us to prevent gay adoption because whether or not doing so seems moral and right, in the real world, the theory doesn't apply. Trying to prevent a child from experiencing harassment and the emotional or physical harm that may stem from that is necessarily based on a moral imperative - a duty to prevent harm. You're trying to use an argument that states moral imperatives don't matter in the real world as support for something that would be a moral imperative. It's a paradox that renders your argument nonsensical.
Quote:

i never suggested that we shouldn't use any morals in attempting to do the right thing, and then you proceeded to twist my words into going against my own argument. I merely said that since we live in a homophobic society, why do we try to force laws through that alienate people and cause them to react negatively towards the people these laws intend to help.

We can't prevent kids who are the product of interracial marriages from being teased or harassed at school either. Would you consider that a valid argument for preventing interracial marriages? Quote:

I dont believe that i ever suggested that interacial marriages should be prevented. I know many kids who come from interracial households, and not one of them experiences any true bullying. A child from a gay household, however, or even a gay kid, is the target bullying, which i have witnessed, and it has been proven. Based on the standards of our society, gays aren't widely accepted. Im not saying this is my view, but it is the view of our country.

If you believe that marriage absent a religious element is only about tax breaks & benefits, then you have a very poor understanding of what marriage is really about, both in the modern world and the ancient. At it's core, marriage is about two mutually consenting, competent adults uniting to form a family unit - one which may or may not at some point include children, which are a secondary consideration, not primary. They do so for the purpose of providing each other with mutual support that can be practical, emotional or economic in nature. But this is a modern definition of marriage, in which we often consider love to be an important factor. Quote:

Then what is the couple's problem with living together as a couple, if the benifit of marriage laws and tax breaks is not at the core of the issue? They certainly aren't marrying for the religious factor ither, so then why is marriage truly a necessity. They could fulfill all of the above metioned simply by living toghether their entire lives.

Total BS. 'Nature' doesn't have an opinion about anything; only people have opinions, and opinions are not facts.

What proof will you offer us that homosexuality is 'unnatural', I wonder? Quote:

I can offer that it is unnatural by the fact that homosexual couples are unable to reproduce naturally, without any aid. Nature may not have an opinion, but it does have laws. The root of all species is the ability to reproduce and keep the species alive, those species who refuse to partake in reproduction, or cannot partake in reproduction, die off, its the law of natural selection. Based on these facts, most would agree that such a circumstance would be deemed unnatural.


By your reasoning, neither should infertile heterosexuals. [/quote]

No, that is not by my reasoning at all. Couples would not know they are infertle without scientific tests, tests that ould be unablle to be administered without advancements in technology. gays should be able to tell that they can't reproduce by common sense. I f a couple is heterosexual, they should be able to marry based on the prinnciple that they could have kids, and that they might someday. I've known several infertile couples that have had kids, it does happen sometimes.

Quote: The decision to create a life and be responsible for it, nurturing that child until it reaches adulthood is selfish? No, I'd say trying to boss couples around in their family planning decisions just because you don't like homosexuality is what's selfish. And I don't buy all of your 'I'm not homophobic' crap. You may not be conscious of it, but if you didn't posess at least some fear or loathing of homosexuality and its impact on society, you wouldn't be spending your time in this forum making arguments against it. You'd simply have no reason to do so.

not necessarily, its the principle of the matter that bothers me. i have no problem with the individuals or their lifestyle choices, but i don't believe they should be able to impose that on others.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Luigidel wrote:
I homeschooled child, or any other child isolated from the real world, and from interaction from his or her peers, is definitely not healthy. How would a child learn to function in a semi-real world environmet if the majority of their life takes place in the security and the comfort of their own home? The fact is they don't, so therefore that would not be a valid argument.


Well, Skeptical covered everything except this I think. You are completely ignorant. Do you really think that the majority of kids coming out of public schools are competent and competitive in the world? I would wager that a larger percentage of homeschoolers go on to higher education than public school students. As far as the social part of it (and of course, I am not speaking for a kid who has never left his house or had any friends... homeschoolers still find a social life through sports, clubs, or other activities), it varies from kid to kid depending on how their parents raised them. Of course there are the stereotypical "akward" homeschoolers, but don't try to tell me that many kids in public school are not like that. A large number of kids spend their years in public school being tormented and left out. How are they any better off? I'm not saying that every homeschool parent does a good job, but you can't generalize. And rememebr, homeschoolers are not completely isolated from society. If they were, that would be unhealthy.

I was homeschooled for much of my life. I am a perfectly sociable person, and I am functioning in society just fine. I would say that the biggest effects that homeschooling had on me are that I think for myself and I never give a sh!t what other people think. That has had an extremely positive effect on my life. I wouldn't have done it any other way. Personally, I think that public schools in general breed a lot of small-minded conformers who don't think freely and care way to much about their pointless social life and what their peers think of them. They do anything to fit in, anything to be "cool", and they get themselves in a lot of sh!t along the way.

[Gryff1nd0r]

Luigidel wrote: i have no problem with the individuals or their lifestyle choices, but i don't believe they should be able to impose that on others.

:roll: You could say that about any sort of people you want. For every Catholic, Democrat, interracial couple, immigrant couple, dirt poor couple, etc... there are people who disagree with their ways and would say that they "have no right to impose their lifestyle on others". Well, guess what, YOU have no right to impose your OPINIONS on them. You don't have a argument that is not based on speculation and opinion, so you can't impose it on anyone else.

[Enoch]

00timh wrote: I also would like to add that if you think you have it bad now, would you have rather been alive 100...even 50 years ago. You might want to think about this.

So...because we have it better than we used to we shouldn't try to make it better still?

[F'losrix]

Luigidel wrote: I'm sorry skeptical mystic if you didn't find my last post to be inthe great spirit of debate, but please do not threaten me into reposting with the threat of locking the thread. My last attempt at this topic was locked beacause people began to personally attack each other, if i didnt want an actual debate, i wouldn't have reposted would I?
Actually, yes - I believe you might - I've seen it done by others a number of times before.

Quote: First of all, being in highschool myself, I think that I have a relatively good understanding about the effects being raised in a same-sex household would have on a child, i witness it every day.
What you would have is a perspective developed from your experience of how the children of gay parents are treated as it relates to the environment of your school. My experience as a gay person - which it is reasonable to believe would put me at even more peril than someone who is only the child of a gay parent - does not support your assertion that all of the child's peers would turn on him or her.

My high school days may have been over 20 years ago, but I remember much of it pretty clearly. Other kids knew I was gay (a not-so true friend blabbed). I was harassed, but not by all of my peers, mainly by a few persistent bullies, who mainly attacked me when they knew my friends weren't around to lend aid. And I did not grow up in an accepting, thriving metropolis with an openly gay population. My town had (and still has) fewer than 3,000 people in it. It was not a bastion of homophilia, quite the opposite.

This leads me to believe you're grossly exaggerating the situation when you say that all of a student's peers would turn on them, that none would defend them, etc.

Quote: Quote: False statement. The child may be subject to attack from some bullies, but not from every one of his peers. Some may actually come to his defense. I know this to be fact from personal experience. All you have is conjecture and exaggeration.


I do know from personal experience, having seen the attitudes expressed by individuals in the school, and afterschoool environment, in every aspect of the teenage life. i can assure you that most kids would not be able to "fully" accept them, an those whp came to his defense would be vastly outnumbered, and targeted themselves. Having defended my gay friends many times, i know how this works personally.
See above. Unless things have gotten considerably worse since I was in school, which I doubt, I'm inclined not to wholly believe you.

Quote: Quote: Quote: It is a fact that we do live in a homophobic society, don't disregard that, in fact, you have been trying to prove that all along. I AGREE. So where does it say that we should disregard this fact, and go along granting freedoms beecause they seem moral and right, while in the real world, the theories don't apply.
Based on that reasoning, I would assert that we shouldn't bother doing anything that seems moral or right, since the real world apparently isn't. In which case your argument fails outright - there would be no obligation for us to prevent gay adoption because whether or not doing so seems moral and right, in the real world, the theory doesn't apply. Trying to prevent a child from experiencing harassment and the emotional or physical harm that may stem from that is necessarily based on a moral imperative - a duty to prevent harm. You're trying to use an argument that states moral imperatives don't matter in the real world as support for something that would be a moral imperative. It's a paradox that renders your argument nonsensical.

i never suggested that we shouldn't use any morals in attempting to do the right thing, and then you proceeded to twist my words into going against my own argument. I merely said that since we live in a homophobic society, why do we try to force laws through that alienate people and cause them to react negatively towards the people these laws intend to help.
That isn't what you said, and I've requoted you above in color to make this clear. Trying to claim you meant something different isn't going to fly. My argument stands as originally presented.

As to your new assertion, I would suggest that you need to study the Constitution to find out why we try to treat people justly as a matter of law, instead of relying upon public opinion to be the sole arbiter of whose rights should or shouldn't enjoy protection.

Quote: Quote: We can't prevent kids who are the product of interracial marriages from being teased or harassed at school either. Would you consider that a valid argument for preventing interracial marriages?

I dont believe that i ever suggested that interacial marriages should be prevented. I know many kids who come from interracial households, and not one of them experiences any true bullying. A child from a gay household, however, or even a gay kid, is the target bullying, which i have witnessed, and it has been proven. Based on the standards of our society, gays aren't widely accepted. Im not saying this is my view, but it is the view of our country.
You're missing my point. Just because interracial kids might be more accepted at your school, that doesn't mean they are widely in our society. With that in mind, I think you should read my argument again.

You basically want us to use the degree to which people are unjustly treated in society as the means to deciding what justice is. The more they're disliked, the less you would apparently have us do to protect them. Heck of system you go going there.[end sarcasm]

Quote: Quote: If you believe that marriage absent a religious element is only about tax breaks & benefits, then you have a very poor understanding of what marriage is really about, both in the modern world and the ancient. At it's core, marriage is about two mutually consenting, competent adults uniting to form a family unit - one which may or may not at some point include children, which are a secondary consideration, not primary. They do so for the purpose of providing each other with mutual support that can be practical, emotional or economic in nature. But this is a modern definition of marriage, in which we often consider love to be an important factor.
Then what is the couple's problem with living together as a couple, if the benifit of marriage laws and tax breaks is not at the core of the issue?
You mean why isn't that good enough? Would you settle for being treated like a second class citizen, denied the ability to visit your spouse in portions of a hospital where visitors are restricted to immediate family? Would you settle for having your last will & testament thrown out by a judge who favors the undocumented claims of your blood relatives over your spouse? How about being denied the ability to insure your spouse & dependent step-children? Or being denied bereavement leave when your spouse dies? Especially if ALL these things were granted to some other couple with a relationship that you can demonstrate is equivalent to your own?

You want this issue to go away? Get rid of the government's recognition of marriage completely. Of course the next argument is usually along the lines of how do we handle stuff like dividing an estate during a divorce, or handling child custody if there's no government recognition of marriage? Well guess what - gay people have had to deal with breakups and child custody without the benefit of the court's intervention all this time. In fact, the court system has mostly been downright hostile to us in those situations. Now are you starting to get at least a tiny inkling of why we're complaining?

Quote: They certainly aren't marrying for the religious factor ither, so then why is marriage truly a necessity.
There's an asinine assumption. What makes you think some gay people aren't just as religious and view their marriages as being just as sacred as religious straight couples do?

The idea that gay people are all selfish hedonists who are only in this fight for the money and sexual pleasure is beyond insulting.

Quote: They could fulfill all of the above metioned simply by living toghether their entire lives.
And pay higher taxes than the married couple next door, have none of the equivalent benefits that married people receive from their employers, get screwed by the court if their marriage breaks up because it's not legally recognized, and have their families swipe their estate right out from under their surviving spouse. Like I said before, heck of a system.

I'm not making this stuff up, you know. I knew a couple - one guy had made a comfortable life for himself and his partner (who had been a waiter) by dealing in real estate. He made the mistake of putting their home in the partner's name, thinking that he needed to protect his partner in case something should ever happen to himself, the chief income earner. So when the partner dies unexpectedly, he ends up losing his house and a lot of their shared assets & personal posessions, etc. to his partner's family, who laid claim to the estate. It's easy in hindsight to say he should have made more solid legal arrangements, but people aren't always smart about this stuff, and as I pointed out before, the court's haven't exactly been friendly to gay couples. Had they been able to get legally married, the deceased partner's family would have had a much rougher time of it in court.

Quote: Quote: Total BS. 'Nature' doesn't have an opinion about anything; only people have opinions, and opinions are not facts.

What proof will you offer us that homosexuality is 'unnatural', I wonder?

I can offer that it is unnatural by the fact that homosexual couples are unable to reproduce naturally
That's not a sufficient argument. The ability to reproduce is not the measure of what is or isn't natural. Homosexuality occurs across multiple species in nature. To say it isn't natural is to ignore the very facts of nature itself.

Quote: Nature may not have an opinion, but it does have laws.
Not exactly. Those 'laws' are constructs created by man to explain the way we expect the universe to behave. So they aren't Nature's laws, their man's concept of natural laws.

Quote: The root of all species is the ability to reproduce and keep the species alive, those species who refuse to partake in reproduction, or cannot partake in reproduction, die off, its the law of natural selection. Based on these facts, most would agree that such a circumstance would be deemed unnatural.
If they do agree, they'd be wrong. The fact that a minority of a species engages in homosexual behavior generally does not have a significant effect on the level of production required to sustain that species. The fact that natural selection hasn't succeeded in eliminating homosexuality doesn't necessarily indicate that it's not natural; it may very well indicate that there is some quality about it that is beneficial to the species survival beyond basic reproduction. But there is no solid answer to this question, only doubt that we have not been able to sufficiently eliminate with our current level of understanding about human sexuality.

Quote: Quote: By your reasoning, neither should infertile heterosexuals.
No, that is not by my reasoning at all. Couples would not know they are infertle without scientific tests, tests that ould be unablle to be administered without advancements in technology. gays should be able to tell that they can't reproduce by common sense. I f a couple is heterosexual, they should be able to marry based on the prinnciple that they could have kids, and that they might someday. I've known several infertile couples that have had kids, it does happen sometimes.
Whether or not fertility tests couldn't be administered without advancements in technology isn't all that relevant - they can be now, and if procreation is to be the basis for marriage, then it's time we made a change and started requiring them, instead of relying on 'coulds' and 'mights'. Potential reproduction isn't a good standard; requiring an affirmation of the intent to reproduce and voiding marriages that don't fulfill their purpose would be the minimum acceptable standard, if you don't want to go the expensive route of testing marriage applicants' fertility. Waiting through 20-30 years in hopes that they might get around to popping out a kid is a pretty ridiculous standard.

The point is this: A marriage license isn't a license to procreate. People can do that just fine without the piece of paper. Nor is procreation required for marriage - plenty of couples who have the ability to do so consciously choose not to.

I have yet to hear a 'marriage is for procreation' argument that couldn't be fairly easily debunked.

Quote: Quote: The decision to create a life and be responsible for it, nurturing that child until it reaches adulthood is selfish? No, I'd say trying to boss couples around in their family planning decisions just because you don't like homosexuality is what's selfish. And I don't buy all of your 'I'm not homophobic' crap. You may not be conscious of it, but if you didn't posess at least some fear or loathing of homosexuality and its impact on society, you wouldn't be spending your time in this forum making arguments against it. You'd simply have no reason to do so.

not necessarily, its the principle of the matter that bothers me. i have no problem with the individuals or their lifestyle choices, but i don't believe they should be able to impose that on others.
If you didn't have a problem with it, you wouldn't mind the imposition.

Besides which, being gay isn't a lifestyle. Lifestyle is a way of living based on identifiable patterns of behaviour based on an individual’s choice, influenced by the individual’s personal characteristics, their social interactions, and socioeconomic and environmental factors. Being gay isn't enough to qualify alone.

And finally, just why the hell do you think it's being imposed on anyone? No one is saying you have to marry someone of the same sex if you don't want to. There's a lot of crap that goes on in society that I may not agree with, but that's not even remotely the same thing as being imposed upon by it.

[Plodder]

I say no because its such a bad I dea that to do it in the first place is wrong

[F'losrix]

Plodder wrote: I say no because its such a bad I dea that to do it in the first place is wrong
Congratulations! You've just been awarded the dual titles of Most Clueless Poster and Poster Most Likely To Rely on Circular Reasoning.

I try not to make a habit of trolling other members, but it's pretty clear to me that you're obsessed with trolling any thread related to the topic of homosexuality. Why is that? Trying to hide something?

[Plodder]

wtf?

ur with stupid!

Im just particularily vehement about his.
I belive so strongly in my morality, that I need to spred it around

[Gryff1nd0r]

Plodder wrote: wtf?

ur with stupid!

Im just particularily vehement about his.
I belive so strongly in my morality, that I need to spred it around

You aren't spreading any morality. :lol:

[F'losrix]

Plodder wrote:
Im just particularily vehement about his.
There are plenty of people who are 'particularly vehement' about their obsessions.

Plodder wrote: I belive so strongly in my morality, that I need to spred it around
I agree with thegriffinator13 - what you're spreading isn't morality. It's something a lot smellier.

[Æ]

Luigidel wrote: It seems today that all you hear about is the fight about gay marriage. Don't get me wrong, i have no problem with gays at all, what they do behnd closed doors is their own business, not for me to interfere with. I don not, however, support gay marriage. Back to my point, I am trying to figure out why everyonme is so wrapped up in the gay marriage issue, when the real issue should be wy is there no legislation preventing gay and lesbian couples from adopting kids. I feel that this is an issue that needs immediate legislation. Why should a child have to suffer being raised in a household with 2 same sex parents. Beside the fact that the childhood experience is completely unnatural and probably not completely healthy, why should a child have to deal with the humilation of all the tormentation that is sure to be experienced by peers

I know this topic was locked last night, but i do not feel as though a clear picture was revealed as to where people actually stand on the issue. THis time, lets attempt to have a reasonable, rational, discussion, without the mudslinging and personal attacks.
Children, not you, the gov't or narrowminded bigots, should decide who they want to live with.