Reading Love and Lifesense

Sep 18, 2009 17:19 # 46498

zen *** throws in his two cents...

Gay Marriage -- Procreating

94% | 3

A marriage is between one man and one woman. Ok, if we assume the only reason for marriage is to procreate, and multiply. But where does THAT assumption come from? Marriage is the manifestation of love between two people, but expressly for the purpose of reproduction? If those assumptions be the case, then logically it must follow that if a couple doesn't produce offspring, their marriage must be made null-and-void.

If we assume that marriage's most important reason is for procreation, then the length of one should be based on how long it takes to procreate. If in, say 3 years, you haven't produced offspring, your marriage should be, automatically on that next day, made null-n-void. At that point, you'd have to re-register to have the marriage re-instated. You'd have another 6 months to try, but by that point, if you hadn't produced kids, there's something wrong with one of you and you both need to find other partners, so it would seem.
I think now with all the starvation and overcrowding, and massive drain of Earth's dwindling resources, that marriages be limited to, like 2 kids. I mean that's only fair. We live much longer lives now, medicine and modern living keeps people alive much longer. Elsewhere people are dying of aids, cholera, wars, famine, drought, fires, whatever, but in the Western world, ie in this country, we're let to believe we live longer. If that's true, then this further negates the need for a big family. True there was a time when mankind needed to be "fruitful and multiply", but that time is no more. Everyone stuck on the freeway in "rush" hour gridlock of Interstate-95 knows the same thing: there's too many people on this planet

If the reason why gay marriage is "unnatural" is because two of the same sex can't produce offspring, therefore shouldn't be, terethen marriage stands as guardian of the future of our species. Marriage logically becomes the front-line, defining the terms of that expansion. By determining that marriage is one man/one woman, it has now, rightly become embroiled in contrevorsy, and combat. Through "defending" it, you are helping to destroy it.
Specifically it must weed-out all the unproductive citizens. If the intention of marriage is facilitate, legitimize the expansion of the species, then it does, truly have a unique place in our society. By branding it an "institution that needs defending", you are forcing it to take shots that it never should, if it is going to survive as a valid, vital "institution".
In defending the status quo you are using it to discriminate against all other forms of coupling. It is a good thing that it should be used to discriminate against certain types of people. If the object is to raise happy, healthy, safe children/families in a sane, desirable environment, then along with marriage, there should be included a mandatory child-raising training. If you fail that, you should not have children. Couples could still marry, but no kids till you pass the training.
It's only fair. Bringing life into the world is a huge responsibility. Shouldn't marriage be concerned about the lives it brings into the world, rather than just allowing people randomly to get married? Is marriage only concerned about the physical plumbing of squeezing a few more puppies into the world? Doesn't marriage have a responsibility to the children it's produced? It boils down to this: just because two people can produce offspring, doesn't mean they should. My examples for this are any Jerry Springer/Steve Wilkos Show, Divorce Court, Maury, and in fact, pretty much all daytime television.
In fact, from both my own personal experiences, and those of watching all those daytime "reality" shows, I've come to realize that marriage is a pretty f*ed-up, messy, yuckified affair. Marriage in it's current state is shabby, and defiled. It is this state that creeps like Brian S. Brown, Executive Director of National Organization for Marriage, are actively defending.
People don't need to get married. It's not like eating, or breathing, or a roof over your head. You can live, got to work, die just the same without ever getting marriage. But the female has been institutionalized, conditioned into believing that her only worth is that of attracting a husband-and-starting-a-family. This medaeval hanger-on, cling-on to our supposed modern, enlightened thinking isn't easily shaken.

Clearly marriage is indiscriminate, inanimate, passe, often irrelevant to real concerns of our world, our society. Marriage as it is is careless, and caused alot of damage in people's lives. The model of marriage as it stands is imploding.
Here's my reasoning on why that is. As a bi-guy, I've been with a number of married guys, more than all the gay men and women put together. To me that proves bi guys are attracted to other bi guys, but that's another discussion. The fact is these guys get to enjoy the both of "both worlds" as it were. Most wives will never find out about their husbands' extra-curricular activities. When he comes home, doesn't smell like errant kitty, he's good-to-go having passed the test...for that day. The reason I'm able to be with him is that, honestly, I'm easier to deal with me, another bi guy. It's also likely from the fact that I'm doing things with/to him that he can't/won't ask wifey to do to him. Sometimes it's the way that I'll rough him up, slapping him around like a true bottom-sissiboi. Obviously this is not something his wife can, or should know about. Me treating his as the true bottom, which we both know he is, is at once a very natural thing that we guys do to each other--rank each other in that relative Alpha male manner. Yes, he's cheating. But no, he's not cheating. It's only cheating if you're getting the same thing outside the relationship, that you're getting inside. The fact of the matter is that what I do with your man, you could, but more likely won't do with him. A woman can't substitute for a man, for a long period of time. If he's one of the 60%, then he's going to see me. If he's the other 40%, he's going to look for a female. Chances are that other female is going to do what the wife can't or won't do.

Marriage is caprecious: people fall in love, and people fall out of love. Once married, your real self comes out, and one can't escape what she or he has caught. Marriage without automatic, immediate deference to divorce is an anachronism. Statistics that I read have both marriage and divorce statistics side-by-side. Statistics can be used however, but the most interesting statistic is that people are getting divorced at about same rate they're getting married. (See: http://www.biblenews1.com/marriage/marriags.htm#Total%20Divorces).
There's also that great statistic entitled: Men take separation/divorce harder than women. An online stalker of mine was having a discussion with me about his recent divorce. His married experiences were helping him realize that he wasn't straight. His marriage soured him on women. One day he starts the discussion this way: "[Marriage] is so unfair for the guy." My immediate response was: "Marriage is unfair in general. It's a protected state for certain people." Apparently that's no less true in divorce: protected status for certain people.

All of this says nothing about those people who can't have children. Let's call these people by the name "transgendered". Maybe that's not a fair statement. Trannies are one of the subgroup under that rubric. Then there's people who've had operations/medical procedures, or ailments, or what have you that have rendered them sterile. Then there's the people too old to have kids. Then there's the people who have proven to themselves (and others) that they should never spawn again. Some of those people may have already produced offspring. If the couple is M/F, they're still allowed to marry.
And what about people who've been divorced 3, 4, 5, or more times. Shouldn't it have dawned on them that it's not working?

To summarize quickly: If marriage is anything, it's arbitrary, and caprecious as it is. Marriage is destroying itself. Don't blame that on gays looking to be as miserable as those of you who have chosen a lifestyle riddled with problems.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 18, 2009.

Sep 22, 2009 10:12 # 46504

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 2

Well, being Italian and probably also quite "narrow-minded", I will tell you what I think... I think that marriage, just like it is stated in the constitution (at least in ours, and in every other state of right - not sure if state of right is the correct translation in English btw) is intended as the union of a man and a woman. A man and a woman; not two men, not two women. The Christian/Catholic conception wants marriage as a union to procreate, and in fact in the religious ceremony there is a part where the priest/minister will say that you shall be willing to accept all the children that God wants to bless you with. This is of course not stated in the civil ceremony; in a civil ceremony they simply read the laws according to the civil code, which summing up remind you that you have to provide the assistance to your partner - moral and economic - you have to educate your children according to their own inclinations and so forth.

Marriage for me is intended between a man and a woman only. This is not to say that two guys or two girls cannot fall in love and live together. However, I am deeply against pacs. It might be selfish of me to say this, considering that I am straight and married. But I cannot accept that two guys for example adopt a kid and raise this kid, just like I cannot accept two girls doing the same thing. Unfortunately two girls don't need to adopt, because they only need to get laid with a perfect stranger to achieve what they want (and I've heard of girls who actually did something like that just to get pregnant). A family is made up of a man and a woman, and of course their kids if they have any.

Again it might be quite a narrow minded idea... I have nothing against gays or lesbians, however I dislike the way they like to have the attention all focused on them with stupid manifestations like the gay pride for example. Heck, I am straight... all of us straight people should do a straight pride for a change? I think that whatever you do in bed is your own business and there is no need to shout out to the world whether you like to take it in the ass or what. For this reason I deeply dislike gay people who claim that they have a right to have a family. Yes, they do have a right to have a family, but this has to be intended as them together with their male partner, possibly with certain rights recognized by the states. But I think that a certain discrimination should still be placed: they should have the right of staying at the hospital with their partner, they should see their rights recognized as far as all the monetary issues are concerned, but in no way can they be allowed to adopt children. And so yes, they would be different than a real family, than a real hetero couple.

Pacs for me might be fine in only certain circumstances:
1) two gays or two lesbians want to see their rights recognized: ok, this is fine for me, but no you cannot get married as marriage can be only between a guy and a girl. But you should still have certain rights recognized... call it a B series marriage.
2) two gays or two lesbians cannot adopt kids. Why? Well because men cannot give birth (seems obvious that they cannot have therefore kids). Unfortunately this can be seen as something not right, because girls just need to get laid to have a child.
3) pacs between two people of different sex should NEVER be allowed. At that point if you want to have the rights that a regular marriage will grant you... hell get married!

Btw. about what you said about a biguy who is married and goes with another biguy... well hell that is cheating on his wife. Other than being totally disgusted with this behavior, because I cannot conceive cheating at all, I can even tell you that being cheated on with a girl is one thing... you can accept it or not, you can forgive or not, but... being cheated on with a guy... well there are no words. That guy would be out of my house in one split second. And yes he is cheating... it's not that if he does with you something that he cannot ask his wife to do he's not cheating on her. He is. And let me also state that this is a very bastard behavior. You simply don't cheat on people generally speaking. And if this guy is cheating with another guy on his poor wife... well it is clear to me that he hasn't been sincere with her from the very beginning.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 22, 2009 22:44 # 46505

ginsterbusch *** shakes his head...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

65% | 3

So patch-work families like mine are no real families in your terms? The current wife of my father is neither physically nor legally related with me, but her children are at least the first one to me (aka they are both my half-sisters).

And what about single parents? Also, there are a lot of very dysfunctional "families" in which the father not only beats his wife but also his children ..

I personally don't give a fuck about if someone wants to marry a person of the same gender as him/herself. Also I dont see any problem when it comes to parents of the same gender - a lot of folks were raised by their uncles or aunts because their mother was in no state to be one.

If we'd live in a perfect world where there was only a mother-father-children-family - well ...
.. I'd go and shoot out my brains with a sewn pump gun. Others may proceed living in this dream world, I prefer living in the real - painful - one ;)
But this "real" also includes all of the scenarios mentioned above. Bad for the beaten children, good for the patch-work families. Usually the first version turns into the latter one, exclusive the wife-beater (who hopefully gets beaten to the chains).

BTW: I'm "straight". But I've got brains enough to use 'em right. Also, I was educated well - ie. in democratics like in "everyone and everything is equal and has a right to life his, her or its way".

If "marriage" it's just a word you don't want to see "trodden on" - let's exclude those non-christianjudeans, shall we ;-> - invent another, that won't declassify "the other", "B class marriage" as such, but equalize both sides (the "straight" and the "straighter" class marriage).

Got one yet?

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Sep 22, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 12:09 # 46513

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

91% | 2

just like it is stated in the constitution (at least in ours, and in every other state of right - not sure if state of right is the correct translation in English btw)

I did not realize that there were any countries that had put that in their constitution. I realize that the one man/one woman concept of the Roman Catholic/Judeo-Christian marriage pervades much of so-called civilized society, i.e. "our modern world."
The need to specify that in the very constitution of the "state" means that the issue of homosexual love is a long-standing issue. If that fact of life didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a need to add it into the constitution.
One Man/One Woman is a creed that the state is sanctioning in a ceremonial, and actual way. By defining that the most important reason for marrying is to produce offspring, then the State can not get away from this thorny issue: if the marriage doesn't produce children, is it still a valid marriage?
I would say, logically, that a marriage that doesn't produce offspring is invalid.
Unless, of course, half of the importance of a marriage is the "union," the joining of 2 loving individuals as one.

This is not to say that two guys or two girls cannot fall in love and live together.

Two of the same sex can give as much love to each other, and I'll add, for a longer period of time, as the hetro couple.
If you're not willing to accept that a childless marriage should be automatically annulled, then you need to accept that a marriage can be comprised of two of the same sex.

Unfortunately two girls don't need to adopt, because they only need to get laid with a perfect stranger to achieve what they want (and I've heard of girls who actually did something like that just to get pregnant)...

Funny thing about that is it's not just lesbian couples doing that. It's also married women who do that exact same thing as well. As well as single women, and women with a steady guy. Why do women do that?

However, I am deeply against pacs.

I'm not familiar with "pacs." It would seem to be some form of civil-union. Sounds like something I'd be deeply for.

1) two gays or two lesbians want to see their rights recognized: ok, this is fine for me, but no you cannot get married as marriage can be only between a guy and a girl. But you should still have certain rights recognized... call it a B series marriage.

Sure, one guy/one gal. The rest of you are separate but equal.
One guy/one gal, sure, because we all know the most important thing about marriage is whether or not you can physically produce offspring--it doesn't matter what kind of life the kid has, or whether or not the breeders are actually physically/ mentally/ emotionally able to care for the kid is irrelevant... it's that one guy/one gal must somehow automatically, magically make then better at raising a family.
To support my claim that biologically producing a child doesn't automatically make you a fit parent, I bring you "reality television": Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Montel, Maury, Steve Wilkos show, divorce court, the list is seemingly endless.

2) two gays or two lesbians cannot adopt kids. Why? Well because men cannot give birth (seems obvious that they cannot have therefore kids). Unfortunately this can be seen as something not right, because girls just need to get laid to have a child.

It's a funny point where only half of the applicable cases fit into your argument hahahahahahahahaha
...and that "girls just need to get laid" statement....that's a good one too; a regular hoot and a hollar.
Seriously though, your argument is lame, because there can be a hetro couple, where, in the case of someone I know, where the woman isn't able to give birth. He can, she can't: therefore no kids...but they can still get married.

3) pacs between two people of different sex should NEVER be allowed. At that point if you want to have the rights that a regular marriage will grant you... hell get married!

Why? Why should they have to get married? Isn't that, oh yes, it is, forcing them to get married. What a truly aweful thing to do to someone.

all of us straight people should do a straight pride for a change?

Excuse me, what world do you live in? Did you not just tell us:

...just like it is stated in the constitution...

? That's no-brainer. Your alleged non-existant "pride" is written right into the law of your land.
You don't have to call that pride, however: I won't. I chose to call that discrimination.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

This post was edited by zen on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 07:10 # 46510

null throws in his two cents...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

92% | 3

Wow, that's one huge bastard of a post. I wouldn't want to even try to reply to everything.

Just a few thoughts to the topic of gay marriage:

I'm gonna state something slightly troll-ish here, but let me explain it:
In order to be a christian today, you need to be a hypocrite to a certain degree.
That's because it's impossible to follow the bible in today's society. Do you enjoy sex? Do you plant different crops on the same field? Do you wear underwear made out of at least two different materials? Did you ever curse and use a blasphemous word? Then you've broken God's law, and in most of the cases mentioned should be put to death.
In fact, the Old Testament is an amazing source of ridiculous stuff. (I wanted to link to a few Martin the Satanic Racoon comics where God tells you to kill babies, gives you hemmorrhoids and smears shit in your face, but sadly the website appears to have died.)

There are those who claim that the Old Testament is irrelevant today because it has been 'fulfilled' when Jesus died for our sins... yet still, few of those people actually to do away with the OT altogether. (Especially when it comes to topics such as gay marriage.)

The truth is, most christians (save for some truly fucked-up weirdos such as Jack T. Chick) interpret the Good Book very liberally. Which, considered the mind-boggling amounts of ridiculous stuff in there, is a very good thing.

I don't really mind that so far; live and let live, right? As long as you don't ring my doorbell at 7:30 on a Sunday morning to tell me about the Lord our saviour,

Yet what bugs me is that there are enough people who think they should force their own hypocritical ideals on other people. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a good example. I bet she opposes gay marriage, too.


The funny thing is that it could be so simple:

Imagine, for a moment, that gay marriage was legal in your country. (You may not have to imagine, as many countries already allow it.)

No priest of any religion can be forced to marry gay couples if his religion forbids it.
When, on the other hand, a gay couple registers their partnership at the civil registry office, that's not a christian marriage according to the bible.
Thus, as I'm sure we all agree that the separation of state and church is a good thing (ahahah), the gays are married in the mind of an atheist (who doesn't mind), but they're not married in the eyes of a believer (who would mind). In short, win-win!
The only thing everybody needs to agree on is that "marriage" can mean different things to different people, and that shouldn't be too hard.

In other words, being against gay marriage in general is just intolerance towards people who are different, probably combined with fear (and thus refusal) of the unknown. The only reasons against gay marriage I keep hearing are "the bible says that ...", which is just trying to force one's own ideals on other people, and a slightly desperate "...but it's unnatural!", which is bullshit (homosexuality among animals is well documented).
When one gay puts his peepee into another (consenting) gay's bum, or one lesbian licks another lesbian's snatch in the privacy of their bedroom, that's just none of anybody else's fscking business. And so far anybody opposing gay marriage has miserably failed to provide me with just one example of how society could be hurt if gay couples were allowed to register their partnership just as straight couples have done it for centuries.

Which brings us back to this question.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 12:40 # 46515

zen *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

I knew this would be a great topic.

I wouldn't want to even try to reply to everything

Well, the great thing about my post is that I'm not looking at this from the general. I kept it to a specific topic: simply procreation, the ability to create off spring. This is the central, most important issue in the whole debate on gay marriage.

The following statement goes toward illustrating the point I was making:

No priest of any religion can be forced to marry gay couples if his religion forbids it.
When, on the other hand, a gay couple registers their partnership at the civil registry office, that's not a christian marriage according to the bible.
Thus, as I'm sure we all agree that the separation of state and church is a good thing (ahahah), the gays are married in the mind of an atheist (who doesn't mind), but they're not married in the eyes of a believer (who would mind). In short, win-win!
The only thing everybody needs to agree on is that "marriage" can mean different things to different people, and that shouldn't be too hard.

There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. The Marriage is the religious ceremony. How does a religious ceremony get written into countries' constitutions?
As a fact, currently, marriage means different things to different people, it's like there's also the mental definition people have.
Without going into too much detail, I mentioned about biguys in a marriage, but there's also "open marriages" lots of other habits that people have that are now very-much a part of the landscape of married life.
Beyond a doubt, men and women both have different definitions of what marriage means.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Sep 23, 2009 13:44 # 46516

null rants...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. The Marriage is the religious ceremony. How does a religious ceremony get written into countries' constitutions?

Well, what can I say. Most constitutions were written in more religious times by God-fearing people. No wonder lots of stuff from the bible has made it into these.
(Check out the Swiss constitution, which was completely rewritten from scratch less than ten years ago - there was a huge debate about that, and it still starts with "In the name of God, the almighty". So much about the separation of state and church in practice. Luckily, the religious zealots didn't manage to smuggle in much else.)

simply procreation, the ability to create off spring. This is the central, most important issue in the whole debate on gay marriage.

You may be right, but it's also a stupid point, as you've so impressively demonstrated.
But I'd still say the real problem is that a bunch of bigots are trying to force their prejudices and fears upon the rest of us, and every excuse, no matter how far-fetched or flimsy, will happily be abused to further their agenda of intolerance. "The bible says it's a sin", "marriage is to procreate" or "homosexuality is unnatural" are just the excuses du jour, but if we've ever gotten rid of them I'll bet the bigots come up with new ones.

Or maybe it's really just the concept of butt-fucking that bothers some people.

Still, the state doesn't require you to produce offspring when you want to legally marry. From the state's point of view, marriage is just a state-regulated contract signed by two people who (ideally, usually) love each other. There really is no non-bigot reason why two men or two women should be less entitled to signing this contract than a man and a woman.

Marriage as defined by numerous religions, on the other hand, is different. If a catholic priest doesn't want to marry gays only because they can't produce offspring, that's okay according to his religion and should be respected. But then he'd have to also refuse to marry straight couples who use contraceptives, because they offend his religion's concept of marriage just as well.
Everything else would be hypocritical. However, while it's not exactly the best of all character traits, being a bigot and a hypocrite falls under the human right of freedom of opinion and is thus perfectly legal.

Hence, unless the reasonable people learn to keep the many different concepts of "marriage" separate and ignore the bigots (because those will never shut up), the debate about gay marriage will continue for many many years to come... whether it's (seemingly) about holy books, producing offspring or just plain homophobia doesn't really matter. A true bigot will always find a socially acceptable 'reason' to justify their bigotry.

Beyond a doubt, men and women both have different definitions of what marriage means.

Ahahah, religious zealots and atheists even more so. :-D

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Sep 23, 2009.

Sep 23, 2009 14:59 # 46519

andromacha *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

90% | 3

Hey, I stated that I am narrow-minded, didn't I? It is not that I am not tolerant towards gays or lesbians... like I said, they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their home. A straight couple who kiss in an appropriate way in public bother me just as much as a couple of gays or lesbians. I suppose I am old-fashioned.

And yes, to reply to ginster... I do consider a family only a union between a man and a woman, plus of course their kids if they have any. I am sorry, but in my conception a single mother, a single father, or a couple of the same sex are not considered a standard family. This is not due to religion at all; I was even trying to make a point talking about this under a civil point of view.

Pacs is the Latin word for pacts; it implies some kind of agreement between people. In other words, that would be like a B series union; I think I am deeply against pacs mainly as far as hetero couples are concerned. I mean... the message that they want to pass is this "if we do live together but we're not married, we should still have the same rights of two married people"; well this really pisses me off. I still believe in marriage, as I see it as a commitment to the other person... a commitment that you cannot just trash in a matter of two seconds... at least here marriage is not just a piece of paper. If you're not married, one day you could just decide to kick out your partner... nice commitment huh? Marriage is a serious commitment between two people, and it is only right and fair that married people acquire certain rights. I don't think that these same rights should be reserved to people who aren't married.

I guess that my problem is that I cannot really relate, and so I cannot understand certain things. I only know that my cousin went to live together with his girlfriend, and they have no intention to get married (at least yet); I can think of a million things that according to me aren't right in their relationship, and honestly I don't even know exactly how they handle it. First of all, my cousin was the one who put almost all the money for their apartment furniture, even though she was the one picking out the stuff; I do wonder who pays the bills, or who pays for the groceries... and what would happen if they broke up (God forbids it!) Who would get what? If people already fight and fuss when they divorce, and the splitting there is regulated somehow, can you imagine what could happen if two people who aren't even legally bonded split up? There is nothing out there to discriminate things among them. Of course it is their choice, and I love her, she is wonderful and am very happy they are together, and of course I do respect their decision. However, I do wonder what kind of commitment they have to each other if they don't even have the balls to go and sign a "piece of toilet paper" (as it was gracefully described by her); heck if it is really a piece of toilet paper, you shouldn't have a problem in signing it... for you it doesn't make a difference.

Maybe, or no, not maybe, I am sure I make a mistake when I am so critical of people who deliberately choose not to get married... I honestly don't even understand why. I mean... if you're in love with a person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person... then why you don't want to marry him/her? The fact that unmarried couples now expect the same rights of married couples worries me... it worries me because I still believe in marriage, and it bothers me that it is getting more and more depreciated.

As far as gay marriage is concerned... like I said... my problem is only about the "term". Call it union, and give these couple certain rights, but not all of the rights of straight couples. I am sorry... I do believe that gay or lesbian parents would not be good parents. Not that they are bad people, and maybe they would be great parents if straight... but think about the kid for a second... an adopted kid who sees daddy and daddy going to sleep together in the same room... same kid then goes to a party with his friends and sees moms and dads there. How can you explain this kid that there is a special relationship that involves only people of the same sex? I mean, come on... straight relationships are still the norm and the majority... it is obvious that kids would question something different. Another example... take a young female kid raised by two guys... who is going to tell this girl about periods and feminine stuff? How awkward would that be? And I can find many more examples of instances that would show that two parents of the same sex would not be good parents... again, not because they are bad people... I am sure that they would love their kids and so forth... but love is not enough I don't think.

Now, Ginster you made the example of fathers who abuse kids and/or wives. Well it's more than obvious that these individuals would be bad parents, more than obvious. And I would consider them bad parents and people I wouldn't want to give a child up for adoption to, just like I wouldn't allow gays or lesbians to adopt a child, but for different reasons.

PS. Interesting post btw. Also I wanted you to know that all of this has nothing personal with you guys. This is only how I feel, and I am sorry if you will feel like you need to insult me or my intelligence. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know... maybe I am narrow-minded (most likely), and most likely I am old fashioned. I still like men opening doors for me, paying the bill at the restaurant and things like that.

Italy no longer accepts illegal immigrants. Mr. B sink their boats!!!!!!!

Sep 23, 2009 21:36 # 46521

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

PS. Interesting post btw. Also I wanted you to know that all of this has nothing personal with you guys. This is only how I feel, and I am sorry if you will feel like you need to insult me or my intelligence. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know... maybe I am narrow-minded (most likely), and most likely I am old fashioned. I still like men opening doors for me, paying the bill at the restaurant and things like that.

You are narrow-minded. My personal "narrow-mindedness" does exclude narrow-minded people including fanatics of any kind (whether politically or religiously - I consider this to be of the same source).

BTW: "Old fashioned"-ness as you describe it has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness or plain being prejudiced. I mostly try to behave gentleman-alike, althou my jokes are not. I also believe prejudices can be given up - because there are former neo-nazis. There are even former Jehovah's Witnesses I personally know (of).

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 24, 2009 06:29 # 46522

null replies...

Re: Gay Marriage -- Procreating

?% | 1

:-) I for one wasn't attacking you personally. You have a right to your own opinion just as anybody else. What bothers me is those people who try to force their opinions on other people.

"I think butt-fucking is disgusting."
vs.
"I think butt-fucking is disgusting. Let's make it illegal!"

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.


Favorites (edit)

Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)