<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If a same sex couple wants to get married, good for them. But they shouldn't be treated the same as a hetrosexual couple, thats like apples and oranges. How anyone can say 2 men or 2 women is the same as 1 man and 1 woman is beyond me. I mean, you DID learn basic anatomy right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, while we're at it, let's treat homosexuals different in other legal ways too, like sentencing them more harchly for other crimes, and why not take it a step further, and make legal distinctions between the sexes, or maybe even the races! Yeah, then everything will be fair!
In case you havn't noticed, this isn't anatomy, it's law. Legally there should be no distinction based on the physical aspect of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See this is why I've been stating that I dispise organized religion. I don't want it to look like I'm attacking you specifially TenSix, but your ideals are brought on by organized religion. Suicide bomber zealots are brought on by organized religion. The KKK was brought on by organized religion. I have no problem with being christian so long as you aren't a sheep following someone who is teaching you to hate someone else because they're different. I've gone to baptist churches with friends, I was raised catholic, and when they would ask what religion I was I would say catholic. Promptly the preacher or whatever the crap he called himself would say that I was pretty much of the devil and I needed to be saved. Needless to say I don't go to church around here anymore. Ok I'm deviating. You believe that being homosexual is wrong. The bible does say it, but it also says you shouldn't judge. What were talking about here, as we've mentioned several times before its been dodged and derailed because you HAVE NO ARGUMENT besides religion, is that it is fundamentally against the law in the United States to forbid marriage of two people of the same sex. They shouldn't be treated the same under the law? GOOD GOD DID YOU NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?!?
/end rant.
I'm done with posting in this thread seeing as a select few people are choosing to completely ignore common sense, and are attempting to twist facts which have been laid out for their own benefit. This isnt a argument anymore, its people whining that the scary homosexual people are out to get their goody christian two shoes.
How people touch eachother in private is their own business,
and none of mine, I myself am straight, Southern Baptist, and studying Christian Ethics and Morals.
For those of you not from the U.S. Southern Baptists are about as conservative as you can get...short of Catholicism or some other denomination im not aware of.
ok im gonna voice my opinion, so if it offends someone, im sorry.
i am always open to reason and new ideas. even the beliefs i base my life around, i still consider new ideas and and never really have a set feeling. im extremely open minded.
cept in 2 issues.
that ive always felt strongly about and extremely against. cause i don't honestly see a point to argue. i honestly cant see how people give some things the ok. and thats true. i just dont understand it. the only 2 things that i honestly hate... on the very top of my list on a completely differant scale of anything else... is abortion. i loathe it. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> but then the second thing i hate is homo... people give it to me all the time. someone will probably give it to me now. but if it bothers you that much how people feel. you may have a problem. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> this is my opinion and my veiw on this, as was asked. so if i offend someone im truely sorry. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
- Is the rejection of homosexuality automatically "homophobic"? No. Believing into the universal moral law as revealed by God, which explicitly condemns certain behaviour as sinful, is not irrational. Accusing someone of irrational fears when he makes a logically consistent argument is an <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy.
"G@ys shouldn't marry because I don't like them" <i>is</i> homophobic nonsense on the other hand. It depends on how well grounded your argument is.
- Should the state outlaw homosexuality? No. Sexually deviant practices, privately done by consenting adults, are beyond the state's responsibility.
- Should the state offer boons to homosexual unions? No. Any two people can decide to live together. The state encourages those unions which benefit the community, i.e. those with a chance to produce and raise new community members/tax payers. Homosexual unions fulfill no functions for the community, therefore the community has no reason to offer boons like tax deductions.
<!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 14 2003, 11:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 14 2003, 11:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that ive always felt strongly about and extremely against. cause i don't honestly see a point to argue. i honestly cant see how people give some things the ok. and thats true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't understand your opinion, but you're certainly entitled to hold it. (I'm talking about the "homo...," not abortion - I completely understand and respect being pro-life.) My question for you, though, is this: do you feel that the government should prevent homosexuals from getting married? If yes: do you feel that the government should also prevent homosexuals from having physical relationships? (IE anti-sodomy laws, which still exist in some states, though they aren't generally enforced and are gradually being stricken from the books.) And finally: do you think that your views towards homosexuals make you homophobic, as defined earlier in this thread by me (discriminating against people based on sexuality)?
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 14 2003, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 14 2003, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> - Should the state offer boons to homosexual unions? No. Any two people can decide to live together. The state encourages those unions which benefit the community, i.e. those with a chance to produce and raise new community members/tax payers. Homosexual unions fulfill no functions for the community, therefore the community has no reason to offer boons like tax deductions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the first logical argument I've heard yet from your side. Thank you! But you ignore a point that's already been made: not all straight couples have children, and many g@y couples adopt (which, I think, is providing an even greater benefit to the community than procreation - and unless you can back it up with studies, I'm not going to buy any argument that g@y adoption is harmful to the child or the community, because everything I've read says otherwise).
Should voluntarily childless people not be allowed to marry? How about those who are physically sterile?
<!--QuoteBegin--Neck+Aug 13 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Neck @ Aug 13 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm against homosexual marriage not because I give a crap about the adults themselves, but about the children they're inevitably going to want to raise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying that homosexuals can't be good parents or raise kids properly? That, my friend, is stupid.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 02:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 02:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 14 2003, 11:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 14 2003, 11:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that ive always felt strongly about and extremely against. cause i don't honestly see a point to argue. i honestly cant see how people give some things the ok. and thats true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't understand your opinion, but you're certainly entitled to hold it. (I'm talking about the "homo...," not abortion - I completely understand and respect being pro-life.) My question for you, though, is this: do you feel that the government should prevent homosexuals from getting married? If yes: do you feel that the government should also prevent homosexuals from having physical relationships? (IE anti-sodomy laws, which still exist in some states, though they aren't generally enforced and are gradually being stricken from the books.) And finally: do you think that your views towards homosexuals make you homophobic, as defined earlier in this thread by me (discriminating against people based on sexuality)? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> the government doesnt need to get involved they shouldnt. but i don't agree with some things being so excepted. and yes i am homophobic.
<!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 14 2003, 11:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 14 2003, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i feel that it shouldnt be so excepted. the government doesnt need to get involved they shouldnt. but i don't agree with some things being so excepted. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you feel that your refusal to accept homosexuals makes you homophobic? (I'm not blaming you, as I understand it's a hard thing to overcome - I'm just wondering how you perceive it.)
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 15 2003, 02:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 15 2003, 02:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--(SoD)BOO+Aug 14 2003, 11:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((SoD)BOO @ Aug 14 2003, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i feel that it shouldnt be so excepted. the government doesnt need to get involved they shouldnt. but i don't agree with some things being so excepted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you feel that your refusal to accept homosexuals makes you homophobic? (I'm not blaming you, as I understand it's a hard thing to overcome - I'm just wondering how you perceive it.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> homophobic ---> the fear of homosexual people. trying to accept something that completely just chills my blood. i cant change that. its being homophobic that causes me not to accept them. not the other way around. if i could overcome not getting grossed out and chilled. i would accept them. my close friends tried to argue this with me. and i really tried to see their veiw. but i cant. it flat out disgusts me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
So you agree that you're homophobic - we're on the same page there, then. The original topic of this thread was about whether it was reasonable to label anti-homosexual-marriage legislation as "homophobic," but it's consisted of what I consider to be a bunch of homophobic people insisting that they aren't homophobic because they don't describe what they feel towards g@y people as fear. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I just wanted to see if ANYONE would fess up.
So now that I've got you on the line: when you say that you don't think there should be so much acceptance, do you mean you think more people should be homophobic, as you say you are? Do you think that being homophobic makes you in some way a better person, or possessed of better judgement because you have a better-tuned sense of what's right and wrong? Or, given the option to magically change your outlook, do you think you would be better off if you were able to accept homosexuals rather than be repulsed by them?
<!--QuoteBegin--HosieCow+Aug 15 2003, 08:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (HosieCow @ Aug 15 2003, 08:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Neck+Aug 13 2003, 10:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Neck @ Aug 13 2003, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm against homosexual marriage not because I give a crap about the adults themselves, but about the children they're inevitably going to want to raise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you're saying that homosexuals can't be good parents or raise kids properly? That, my friend, is stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> (i thought i was finished here, but apparently i am not)
it is not stupid. it is an opinoin. who are you to say that one opinion is better than another, or that yours is the correct one?
(i agree with neck - The couple may be perfect parents, but a child needs an influence from both a mum and dad in order to grow up "normally" - not have a biased point of view.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But you ignore a point that's already been made: not all straight couples have children, and many g@y couples adopt<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexual couples who want to raise children are a tiny minority. Their contribution to the community would be marginal compared with the damage caused by breaking centuries of tradition and enraging all members of your state's majority religion.
The perfectly secular state would stay neutral in all moral matters, ignore all judeo-christian traditions and grant tax deductions solely based on parental success.
However, such a state does not exist. Why is public nudity illegal? Why is defecating in public illegal? Why public sex? Do these actions hurt anyone?
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 15 2003, 04:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 15 2003, 04:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (i agree with neck - The couple may be perfect parents, but a child needs an influence from both a mum and dad in order to grow up "normally" - not have a biased point of view.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My father ran off when I was 3. I've grown up just fine. I've seen a lot of people who have a loving mother and father be JERKS. I'm not biased, I'm open-minded. My mother has always raised me to make my own decisions. She never forced her views about anything on me, and I made up my own decisions. I'm a better man than a lot of people with a mother and father, for it. I believe that, if a child has loving fathers, or loving mothers who raise their children properly, (like my mother did) they'll grow up just fine. I catch a lot of flak for being myself, but I'm still letting myself be me. If a kid catches flak for having homosexual parents, and their parents raise them properly, they should be able to shrug it off. Sorry, but that argument has no grounds.
but i am not talking about single parent families, i am saying that two dads could be a bad thing. you cannot base your rebuttal on an experience that is only very loosely related to the subject of the argument
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 15 2003, 06:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 15 2003, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i am saying that two dads could be a bad thing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by a "bad thing."
The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad
SinSpawnHarbinger of SufferingJoin Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8359Members
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--eViL tHe CaT+Aug 15 2003, 01:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eViL tHe CaT @ Aug 15 2003, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Aug 15 2003, 07:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Aug 15 2003, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's now a legal thing, not just religious. So.. No. Also, PLEASE remove the colors from your post, it *BURNS*. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>If you wish to emphasize a point, please use bold or italics. Do not abuse colors.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> does that take you 20 mins to do lol
As I said before , I don't care if people are ****, and If they want to get married, more power to them, but when children enter the eqation, we need to make a distinction. Not draw a line, but define things a little more.
The Ideal family unit is two parents, opposite sex, and well adjusted, since this is how it is possible to have children naturally.
second to that, two well adjusted parents of the same sex,
and after that, one parent of either sex, well adjusted
and after that, all youve got is crap, and their's no point in listing
No matter what your religious feelings or your ideology, you <u>cannot</u> ignore the fact that only heterosexual populations can reproduce. Natures design is a powerfull message. Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.
NOW, since its nearly impossible for homosexuals to reproduce naturally, all they can do is adopt children from foster homes and the like, and two, well adjusted homosexual parents who adopt a child in that manner are FINE BY ME
[EDIT: the bleeped out word is g . y , which i use because it is shorter than typing homosexual, not for derogatory...nes...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
From a biological / psychological point of view, there's no need for a female person filling out the role of the mother (kept of course for early-age-feeding, but let's assume that can be substituted). Men can be as sensitive as women; the role can just as well be filled by one. Besides, there are lots of people growing up with no (or even worse) a bad mother figure. Few of them show the dysfunctions you brought up.
eVIL: Colors are considered somewhat of a moderators / admins privilege around here, to be able to draw attention to announcements. Slight use is OK, but what you are doing here is obstructive. Please cut it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model. A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person. What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe. Of course, there'd be bad-egg-cases, here, too, but if it comes down to judging parentship by the worst cases, heteros shouldn't even be allowed to think about reproducing.
As for the rest of your points, yes, there'd be difficulties connected with the upbringing of such children, and some 'unconventional' problems may arise. Then again, ask your parents how easy it was to get you where you are right now.
Wow, I have to be honest and say that I am really impressed with the level of discussion on this thread. Although a lot of it is repetitive and there is a little bad vibe from time to time, it's been an intersting lunchtime for me to read this. I would very much like to respond but there is an absoloute morass of points I would have to reply to.
Ok I failed <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back in a galaxy far far away when this thread first started, the question was first mooted as to whether banning same sex marriages was immoral and Illegal.
In regards to this, I concur that it is not right. Same sex marriages should be allowed. Most of the arguments raised against it have been opinions, moral and religious as to why this should not go ahead. In terms of real reasons that would impact anyone elses quality of life (aside from them disagreeing with it and considering it morally objectionable) there are very few. The strongest argument has to be the fact that you are denying rights to a certain group of people (The out and proud crew) against those who already enjoy them (The Hettie Posse)
There were lots of other points that were raised that I would like to daly on briefly
Nature / Nurture - never been fully resolved and as a result the conclusion is not definite either way, genetics <b>MAY</b> have a role to play but so does the enviroment you were brought up in as well. Personaly I think it is a bit of both. The subconcious has a role to play in what might seem to be a straight nature issue.
Religious argument - from a Christian perspective there seems to be a lot of Old Tetament theology being espoused. From an academic point of view the New Testament is not as categorical as the OT is in teachings against being Homosexual but I found that people were overlooking several other things, namely the context under which certain books were being written. Gerek culture was suffering a backlash of which homosexuality was an integral part of. This could have influenced NT writers. LIkewise we are looking at things from a 22nd Century viewpoint, having children and pre-creation of the species was crucial still during the time that both the NT and OT were being written. It is not surprising that this viewpoint was incorporated in to the religious teachings of the time. Context is important to look at. If you believe in God then use the brain he gave to look at teachings accademically would perhaps bemy suggestion
Esuna - you are indeed correct, you do suffer more of a chance of getting nobbled for being Queer in England, sadly I have seen and suffered it. Welcome to our beautiful country <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Right I could keep going for days but what I really want to take issue with is Boggles last post;
"The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad"
The child may be mentally unstable but you stand an equal chance if you are within a opposite sex family. Do you have any evidence or statistics for this at all? I'm curious. The mothers role can be taken by someone else as well, good point Nemesis. I have been assured I have a lovely feminie side ;-) Whats more important than anything is that both parents love the child rather than the fact they have to be of opposite sexes.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ah forget it+Aug 15 2003, 02:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ah forget it @ Aug 15 2003, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Right I could keep going for days but what I really want to take issue with is Boggles last post;
"The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad"
The child may be mentally unstable but you stand an equal chance if you are within a opposite sex family. Do you have any evidence or statistics for this at all? I'm curious. The mothers role can be taken by someone else as well, good point Nemesis. I have been assured I have a lovely feminie side ;-) Whats more important than anything is that both parents love the child rather than the fact they have to be of opposite sexes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ok, i was wrong. There is nothing a mother can do that 2 fathers cant do. I still dont believe that g4y marriages should be legalised, as it can be seen to be promoting homosexuality, which i belive is wrong
(we all know about your lovely feminine side though G <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 15 2003, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 15 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model. A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person. What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe. Of course, there'd be bad-egg-cases, here, too, but if it comes down to judging parentship by the worst cases, heteros shouldn't even be allowed to think about reproducing.
As for the rest of your points, yes, there'd be difficulties connected with the upnringing of such children, and some 'unconventional' problems may arise. Then again, ask your parents how easy it was to get you where you are right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, I know their are other acceptible, and desireable forms for role models to take, Im just saying that the <u>most</u> desirable is a traditional father/ mother who are well adjusted, mostly because that is the only way it is possible to procreate.
I guess my argument comes from the fact that even well adjusted homosexuals have to have heterosexual parents at least for 15 minutes, if you'll pardon my vulgarity.
As i said before, Natures design dictates that a man and a woman are required to copulate, there is not "Plan B" if your Homosexual,
And back to the origional posts question: same sex marriages are fine
as long as you bring the child up correctly, how are they supposed to know that it is "right" to have a mother and father? if you bring them up thinking that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having a mother and father, then there are no problems. and don't just say "that's not right" as it has nothing to contribute to the discussion whatsoever. gve facts why it isn't "right." or else all we are seeing is your biased viewpoint.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ulatoh+Aug 15 2003, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ulatoh @ Aug 15 2003, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, I know their are other acceptible, and desireable forms for role models to take, Im just saying that the <u>most</u> desirable is a traditional father/ mother who are well adjusted, mostly because that is the only way it is possible to procreate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know this is basically rethoric masturbation because we both agree on all major points, but nonetheless, I honestly don't see the classical mother/father roles as the most desireable. Think of alcoholics having children, for a drastic example. You might argue that this isn't "traditional", and in a way, this is correct, but then, we're chasing after an ideal fulfilled by a sparse minority, and I could just as easily create the image of 'ideal' homosexual parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess my argument comes from the fact that even well adjusted homosexuals have to have heterosexual parents at least for 15 minutes, if you'll pardon my vulgarity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but how does this natural necessity dictate a sociological desirability?
Comments
Hey, while we're at it, let's treat homosexuals different in other legal ways too, like sentencing them more harchly for other crimes, and why not take it a step further, and make legal distinctions between the sexes, or maybe even the races! Yeah, then everything will be fair!
In case you havn't noticed, this isn't anatomy, it's law. Legally there should be no distinction based on the physical aspect of people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See this is why I've been stating that I dispise organized religion. I don't want it to look like I'm attacking you specifially TenSix, but your ideals are brought on by organized religion. Suicide bomber zealots are brought on by organized religion. The KKK was brought on by organized religion. I have no problem with being christian so long as you aren't a sheep following someone who is teaching you to hate someone else because they're different. I've gone to baptist churches with friends, I was raised catholic, and when they would ask what religion I was I would say catholic. Promptly the preacher or whatever the crap he called himself would say that I was pretty much of the devil and I needed to be saved. Needless to say I don't go to church around here anymore. Ok I'm deviating. You believe that being homosexual is wrong. The bible does say it, but it also says you shouldn't judge. What were talking about here, as we've mentioned several times before its been dodged and derailed because you HAVE NO ARGUMENT besides religion, is that it is fundamentally against the law in the United States to forbid marriage of two people of the same sex. They shouldn't be treated the same under the law? GOOD GOD DID YOU NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT?!?
/end rant.
I'm done with posting in this thread seeing as a select few people are choosing to completely ignore common sense, and are attempting to twist facts which have been laid out for their own benefit. This isnt a argument anymore, its people whining that the scary homosexual people are out to get their goody christian two shoes.
and none of mine, I myself am straight, Southern Baptist, and studying Christian Ethics and Morals.
For those of you not from the U.S. Southern Baptists are about as conservative as you can get...short of Catholicism or some other denomination im not aware of.
i am always open to reason and new ideas. even the beliefs i base my life around, i still consider new ideas and and never really have a set feeling. im extremely open minded.
cept in 2 issues.
that ive always felt strongly about and extremely against. cause i don't honestly see a point to argue. i honestly cant see how people give some things the ok. and thats true. i just dont understand it. the only 2 things that i honestly hate...
on the very top of my list on a completely differant scale of anything else... is abortion. i loathe it. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> but then the second thing i hate is homo... people give it to me all the time. someone will probably give it to me now. but if it bothers you that much how people feel. you may have a problem. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> this is my opinion and my veiw on this, as was asked. so if i offend someone im truely sorry. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
No. Believing into the universal moral law as revealed by God, which explicitly condemns certain behaviour as sinful, is not irrational. Accusing someone of irrational fears when he makes a logically consistent argument is an <i>ad hominem</i> fallacy.
"G@ys shouldn't marry because I don't like them" <i>is</i> homophobic nonsense on the other hand. It depends on how well grounded your argument is.
- Should the state outlaw homosexuality?
No. Sexually deviant practices, privately done by consenting adults, are beyond the state's responsibility.
- Should the state offer boons to homosexual unions?
No. Any two people can decide to live together. The state encourages those unions which benefit the community, i.e. those with a chance to produce and raise new community members/tax payers. Homosexual unions fulfill no functions for the community, therefore the community has no reason to offer boons like tax deductions.
I don't understand your opinion, but you're certainly entitled to hold it. (I'm talking about the "homo...," not abortion - I completely understand and respect being pro-life.) My question for you, though, is this: do you feel that the government should prevent homosexuals from getting married? If yes: do you feel that the government should also prevent homosexuals from having physical relationships? (IE anti-sodomy laws, which still exist in some states, though they aren't generally enforced and are gradually being stricken from the books.) And finally: do you think that your views towards homosexuals make you homophobic, as defined earlier in this thread by me (discriminating against people based on sexuality)?
No. Any two people can decide to live together. The state encourages those unions which benefit the community, i.e. those with a chance to produce and raise new community members/tax payers. Homosexual unions fulfill no functions for the community, therefore the community has no reason to offer boons like tax deductions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's the first logical argument I've heard yet from your side. Thank you! But you ignore a point that's already been made: not all straight couples have children, and many g@y couples adopt (which, I think, is providing an even greater benefit to the community than procreation - and unless you can back it up with studies, I'm not going to buy any argument that g@y adoption is harmful to the child or the community, because everything I've read says otherwise).
Should voluntarily childless people not be allowed to marry? How about those who are physically sterile?
So you're saying that homosexuals can't be good parents or raise kids properly? That, my friend, is stupid.
I don't understand your opinion, but you're certainly entitled to hold it. (I'm talking about the "homo...," not abortion - I completely understand and respect being pro-life.) My question for you, though, is this: do you feel that the government should prevent homosexuals from getting married? If yes: do you feel that the government should also prevent homosexuals from having physical relationships? (IE anti-sodomy laws, which still exist in some states, though they aren't generally enforced and are gradually being stricken from the books.) And finally: do you think that your views towards homosexuals make you homophobic, as defined earlier in this thread by me (discriminating against people based on sexuality)? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the government doesnt need to get involved they shouldnt. but i don't agree with some things being so excepted. and yes i am homophobic.
Do you feel that your refusal to accept homosexuals makes you homophobic? (I'm not blaming you, as I understand it's a hard thing to overcome - I'm just wondering how you perceive it.)
Do you feel that your refusal to accept homosexuals makes you homophobic? (I'm not blaming you, as I understand it's a hard thing to overcome - I'm just wondering how you perceive it.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> homophobic ---> the fear of homosexual people.
trying to accept something that completely just chills my blood. i cant change that. its being homophobic that causes me not to accept them. not the other way around. if i could overcome not getting grossed out and chilled. i would accept them. my close friends tried to argue this with me. and i really tried to see their veiw. but i cant. it flat out disgusts me. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
So now that I've got you on the line: when you say that you don't think there should be so much acceptance, do you mean you think more people should be homophobic, as you say you are? Do you think that being homophobic makes you in some way a better person, or possessed of better judgement because you have a better-tuned sense of what's right and wrong? Or, given the option to magically change your outlook, do you think you would be better off if you were able to accept homosexuals rather than be repulsed by them?
So you're saying that homosexuals can't be good parents or raise kids properly? That, my friend, is stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
(i thought i was finished here, but apparently i am not)
it is not stupid. it is an opinoin. who are you to say that one opinion is better than another, or that yours is the correct one?
(i agree with neck - The couple may be perfect parents, but a child needs an influence from both a mum and dad in order to grow up "normally" - not have a biased point of view.)
Homosexual couples who want to raise children are a tiny minority. Their contribution to the community would be marginal compared with the damage caused by breaking centuries of tradition and enraging all members of your state's majority religion.
The perfectly secular state would stay neutral in all moral matters, ignore all judeo-christian traditions and grant tax deductions solely based on parental success.
However, such a state does not exist. Why is public nudity illegal? Why is defecating in public illegal? Why public sex? Do these actions hurt anyone?
It's in the state's best interest that behaviour which a significant majority considers obscene stays hidden in the closet where it does not offend.
My father ran off when I was 3. I've grown up just fine. I've seen a lot of people who have a loving mother and father be JERKS. I'm not biased, I'm open-minded. My mother has always raised me to make my own decisions. She never forced her views about anything on me, and I made up my own decisions. I'm a better man than a lot of people with a mother and father, for it. I believe that, if a child has loving fathers, or loving mothers who raise their children properly, (like my mother did) they'll grow up just fine. I catch a lot of flak for being myself, but I'm still letting myself be me. If a kid catches flak for having homosexual parents, and their parents raise them properly, they should be able to shrug it off. Sorry, but that argument has no grounds.
Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by a "bad thing."
<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<b>If you wish to emphasize a point, please use bold or italics. Do not abuse colors.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
does that take you 20 mins to do lol
(qoute it and you will see all the babble)
The Ideal family unit is two parents, opposite sex, and well adjusted, since this is how it is possible to have children naturally.
second to that, two well adjusted parents of the same sex,
and after that, one parent of either sex, well adjusted
and after that, all youve got is crap, and their's no point in listing
No matter what your religious feelings or your ideology, you <u>cannot</u> ignore the fact that only heterosexual populations can reproduce. Natures design is a powerfull message. Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.
NOW, since its nearly impossible for homosexuals to reproduce naturally, all they can do is adopt children from foster homes and the like, and two, well adjusted homosexual parents who adopt a child in that manner are FINE BY ME
[EDIT: the bleeped out word is g . y , which i use because it is shorter than typing homosexual, not for derogatory...nes...
From a biological / psychological point of view, there's no need for a female person filling out the role of the mother (kept of course for early-age-feeding, but let's assume that can be substituted). Men can be as sensitive as women; the role can just as well be filled by one.
Besides, there are lots of people growing up with no (or even worse) a bad mother figure. Few of them show the dysfunctions you brought up.
eVIL: Colors are considered somewhat of a moderators / admins privilege around here, to be able to draw attention to announcements. Slight use is OK, but what you are doing here is obstructive. Please cut it out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model.
A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person.
What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe.
Of course, there'd be bad-egg-cases, here, too, but if it comes down to judging parentship by the worst cases, heteros shouldn't even be allowed to think about reproducing.
As for the rest of your points, yes, there'd be difficulties connected with the upbringing of such children, and some 'unconventional' problems may arise. Then again, ask your parents how easy it was to get you where you are right now.
Ok I failed <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Back in a galaxy far far away when this thread first started, the question was first mooted as to whether banning same sex marriages was immoral and Illegal.
In regards to this, I concur that it is not right. Same sex marriages should be allowed. Most of the arguments raised against it have been opinions, moral and religious as to why this should not go ahead. In terms of real reasons that would impact anyone elses quality of life (aside from them disagreeing with it and considering it morally objectionable) there are very few. The strongest argument has to be the fact that you are denying rights to a certain group of people (The out and proud crew) against those who already enjoy them (The Hettie Posse)
There were lots of other points that were raised that I would like to daly on briefly
Nature / Nurture - never been fully resolved and as a result the conclusion is not definite either way, genetics <b>MAY</b> have a role to play but so does the enviroment you were brought up in as well. Personaly I think it is a bit of both. The subconcious has a role to play in what might seem to be a straight nature issue.
Religious argument - from a Christian perspective there seems to be a lot of Old Tetament theology being espoused. From an academic point of view the New Testament is not as categorical as the OT is in teachings against being Homosexual but I found that people were overlooking several other things, namely the context under which certain books were being written. Gerek culture was suffering a backlash of which homosexuality was an integral part of. This could have influenced NT writers. LIkewise we are looking at things from a 22nd Century viewpoint, having children and pre-creation of the species was crucial still during the time that both the NT and OT were being written. It is not surprising that this viewpoint was incorporated in to the religious teachings of the time. Context is important to look at. If you believe in God then use the brain he gave to look at teachings accademically would perhaps bemy suggestion
Esuna - you are indeed correct, you do suffer more of a chance of getting nobbled for being Queer in England, sadly I have seen and suffered it. Welcome to our beautiful country <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
Right I could keep going for days but what I really want to take issue with is Boggles last post;
"The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad"
The child may be mentally unstable but you stand an equal chance if you are within a opposite sex family. Do you have any evidence or statistics for this at all? I'm curious. The mothers role can be taken by someone else as well, good point Nemesis. I have been assured I have a lovely feminie side ;-) Whats more important than anything is that both parents love the child rather than the fact they have to be of opposite sexes.
"The child may grow up with a biased veiw of life, or even be mentally unstable. A mother has a very important role in the upbringing of a child, and it is one that cannot be done by a dad"
The child may be mentally unstable but you stand an equal chance if you are within a opposite sex family. Do you have any evidence or statistics for this at all? I'm curious. The mothers role can be taken by someone else as well, good point Nemesis. I have been assured I have a lovely feminie side ;-) Whats more important than anything is that both parents love the child rather than the fact they have to be of opposite sexes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok, i was wrong. There is nothing a mother can do that 2 fathers cant do. I still dont believe that g4y marriages should be legalised, as it can be seen to be promoting homosexuality, which i belive is wrong
(we all know about your lovely feminine side though G <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the other thing to think about, is the roles that each different parent play, I learn how women are supposed to act from my mother and the way she acts, and men from my father, While it would be possible, how easily do you think a **** man could give advice to a straight teenager about girls? While I know it would be ignorant to say its impossible, it would be INFINITELY harder...
Allso, My father is my rolemodel, He teaches me how normal heterosexual men act, How then, can a **** man, all stereotypes notwithstanding, teach me that? or hjow a straight married man interacts with his wife? He cant, at least he cant as well as my father and MOTHER could.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to differ. Parents are not the only possible role models a child can adopt, they're only the most typical. A girl adopted by homosexual males could just as well consider her 'aunt' or any other female in close touch with the family her role model.
A cousin of mine was brought up largely by my grandmother as her father left her and her mother at early age, which forced the mother to work from the start. The girl is now 18, she had been as close to my grandmother as her natural mother, and lo and behold, she grew up to be a normal, likeable person.
What I'm trying to show here is that our classic 'suburb family' ideal is not the only source of normal citizens, and that personal adjustment for the offspring of a homosexual relationship wouldn't necessarily be as "INFINITELY" hard as you believe.
Of course, there'd be bad-egg-cases, here, too, but if it comes down to judging parentship by the worst cases, heteros shouldn't even be allowed to think about reproducing.
As for the rest of your points, yes, there'd be difficulties connected with the upnringing of such children, and some 'unconventional' problems may arise. Then again, ask your parents how easy it was to get you where you are right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I know their are other acceptible, and desireable forms for role models to take, Im just saying that the <u>most</u> desirable is a traditional father/ mother who are well adjusted, mostly because that is the only way it is possible to procreate.
I guess my argument comes from the fact that even well adjusted homosexuals have to have heterosexual parents at least for 15 minutes, if you'll pardon my vulgarity.
As i said before, Natures design dictates that a man and a woman are required to copulate, there is not "Plan B" if your Homosexual,
And back to the origional posts question: same sex marriages are fine
free to marry someone of the same sex (that's like eating spaghetti with a spatula .. possible but just not right) ...
what next?
<span style='color:white'>A tempsuspension, if I see one more colored post by you.</span>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know this is basically rethoric masturbation because we both agree on all major points, but nonetheless, I honestly don't see the classical mother/father roles as the most desireable. Think of alcoholics having children, for a drastic example. You might argue that this isn't "traditional", and in a way, this is correct, but then, we're chasing after an ideal fulfilled by a sparse minority, and I could just as easily create the image of 'ideal' homosexual parents.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess my argument comes from the fact that even well adjusted homosexuals have to have heterosexual parents at least for 15 minutes, if you'll pardon my vulgarity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but how does this natural necessity dictate a sociological desirability?