UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
yeah, it's funny. and if the rightwing didn't keep making an issue out of gays and lesbians in our society to win elections then the nation would be better off....
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
they absolutely have. I certainly didn't vote for Bush in 2004.
but Kerry is probably my favorite congressional punching bag, having fumbled what should have been the easiest election ever with crap like his lines about Cheney's lesbian daughter.
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,493
- 3,159
- 136
Are you on something?
its just the other way around.
Marriage has to do with property and legal issues between two people.
You can get married in L.V., at sea, by the justice of the peace, or if you chose, in a church.
No where no how is marriage connected legit with religion. Not in print, not in law.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
So, you're offended that Kerry bought up the fact that she is a lesbian? Is it because it was ham handed in the manner he did it - and that he was playing up to those who would vote against those that support gay rights. You feel Kerry was pandering?
not offended -- the god awful manner in which he brought it up was just hilarious.
I tried finding it on youtube, but listening to JK for 30 seconds started putting me to sleep.
liek i no rite.
My posts are so mind-blowing that you guys can't even respond to them in a coherent manner. You either stand back in awe or start name calling. I think it's sad that you guys have been indoctrinated so well that opinions contrary to your own are thrown out with such a knee-jerk reaction.
Bravo, culture controllers! You've done terrifyingly well at telling the masses how and what to think.
Why do you think they shouldn't? Isn't the burden of proof on the discriminator?
But to answer you, for the same reason other adults should get to have children.
You are ignorant, and stating a lie.
There have been many studies every one of which showed that there is no harm at all to children by having two same-sex parents versus two opposite-sex parents.
Ultimately, this ruling implements justice, instead of the harmful bigotry you want.
You are advocating evil.
See PJ's response.
You must really hate children and gays, to deny them both good family situations, and in particular this boy who wants the man who has been his father to continue to.
The sickness I see is your armchair bigotry. Whatever benefit, sense of superiority, sense of power, whatever you get out of advocating discrimnation against people you don't know based on hateful ignorance, it's not anything but you being a bigot. And that's the use of these forums, for you not to get away with it in a discussion as you are called on it.
It's not fair for the kid to have gay parents (because of the social repercussions). It's not fair for the gay parent to not be able to adopt a kid. It's a circular argument.
But WAIT - don't men pay child support because it's for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD?
It's not fair for a father who doesn't get to have his kid live with him (and still has to pay money). It's not fair for the kid to not have a father. AND THIS IS ALLOWED?
If this child support issue is for the benefit of the child, then gay adoptions should be banned for the benefit of the child. I'm so glad that I was not adopted into a gay family (there's a kid at my school who has 2 moms and he gets lots of crap).
The people who give him crap are asses, and we need to end that bigotry just as we did for blacks, who took a lot of heat when integration happened in various ways.
Why don't you do the right thing and say something to anyone you see say wrong, bigoted things about gays? It takes some guts, do you have the guts to stand up for what's right?
Would I want to have you as a kid? Not me, not me.
Sorry to be cruel, but hopefully the point is obvious, on your bigotry against gays.
RocksteadyDotNet
Diamond Member
- Jul 29, 2008
- 3,152
- 1
- 0
In response to Craig234:
1. I think if nature intended for gays to raise children, they'd have the ability to reproduce. Alas, they do not.
2. Children emulate their parents and see their interaction as what's normal. Having two dads or two mom's isn't normal, and the child doesn't learn how a normal couple interacts.
I would like to see some of these studies you're referring to, as I think it would be hard to quantify empirically the kind of things these children are not getting living in a gay household. Furthermore, I am also against single-mother families for the same reasons.
3. Yes, I'm an evil, terrible bigot (I torture puppies for fun). At least I don't rely on ad homminem attacks when I can't come up with a decent counter argument.
What's so evil about wanting to preserve the natural state of the family? Why should we change what has worked for thousands of years - that children should have a mother and father? Why should the most intimate and valuable unit of civilization be demolished just to appease a small percentage of the population? The whole idea is a monstrous perversion and these children did nothing to deserve it.
1. I think if nature intended for gays to raise children, they'd have the ability to reproduce. Alas, they do not.
2. Children emulate their parents and see their interaction as what's normal. Having two dads or two mom's isn't normal, and the child doesn't learn how a normal couple interacts.
I would like to see some of these studies you're referring to, as I think it would be hard to quantify empirically the kind of things these children are not getting living in a gay household. Furthermore, I am also against single-mother families for the same reasons.
3. Yes, I'm an evil, terrible bigot (I torture puppies for fun). At least I don't rely on ad homminem attacks when I can't come up with a decent counter argument.
What's so evil about wanting to preserve the natural state of the family? Why should we change what has worked for thousands of years - that children should have a mother and father? Why should the most intimate and valuable unit of civilization be demolished just to appease a small percentage of the population? The whole idea is a monstrous perversion and these children did nothing to deserve it.
While your argument can be shown wrong a variety of ways, I"ll pick one simple one:
Some men and women are impotent, from birth or later problems. Should those heterosexual, impotent couples who cannot reproduce be allowed to adopt?
Lots of things aren't "normal". Having an unusual religion isn't normal. Being vegetarian isn't normal. Believing the earth is flat isn't normal. Should all parents who in some way aren't 'normal' be banned from raising children? Why is being gay so much more harmful as a way they're different than, say, being smokers, or ignoramuses?
When you are so sure that the gay parents are harmful by not being 'normal', is that your bigotry screaming at you, or do you have any rational harm you can prove?
Many studies have proven than in every measurably way, children raised by gay couples do at least as well as heterosexual couples.
'Different' doesn't necessarily mean worse. Bigotry may make you assume it's worse.
Pretending the fact you are a bigot is silly doesn't make it silly. Someone who is calling for returning to denying blacks equal rights could say the same thing you did and mock it.
My attacks are not ad hominem, they are factually, objectively describing you and the problem with your position.
Of course when you call a bigot a bigot, they don't like it, you don't like it, but that's the thing you need to do, not allow the bigotry to silently go on.
You call for argument, but offer none, because you have none. You may not use ad hominem attacks there, but you call for discriminating against people for no good reason.
That's worse.
The fact that your 'natural state' excludes people for no good reason. You are harming people and there's no reason but bigotry.
People who opposed inter0racial marriage used the 'natural' word a lot too. It's a nice word that sounds respectable, but isn't when it's abused as you abuse it.
Are people who are born blind, born impotent, born with six toes, born extremely tall, born with a disease, born with huge breasts, born gay, 'natural'?
Gays are natural; and they are a natural small part of the human race like any other group I listed any many others. And you have no rational reason to discriminate against them.
We shouldn't change what works with the mother and father. We change what doesn't work, the discrimination against same-sex couples also having parental rights.
You lie in saying that gay parents demolish parenting when the facts say it not only does not demolish it, it equals it at least.
The only monstrous perversion is your irrational, bigotred hatred of a group of people and your demanding for the children to be denied the benefits of those homes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter