• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A GaY Agenda ?

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,057
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Navy Pride said:
A. Its being done every day.........The Colonel I mentioned proves it.......

The Colonel you mention proves nothing. You say that no one knows whether he was gay all along and then 'came out'. Doesn't that include you who doesn't know?

However, I do personally know several people who have stated to me that they were gay long before they came out. Some of these people were with women, some were not, before they came out. Do you know of any single person who has stated that they were straight with no attraction to the same sex, an attraction to the opposite sex and just decided to flip? Is there a single anecdotal story of such, even from a country where it is not taboo to be gay???? I seriously doubt it. Your claims that there are 'documented cases' have not been backed up in the least.

People here have asked you to answer a very simple question. Could you choose to be gay? You have refused to answer. Yes, the question is a trap for such as you. If you answer no, then it lends support to their point. If you say yes, well, you just couldn't bring yourself to say yes because you're so friggin afraid. Of What? That it might actually be true? That saying it might make it true? Well let me tell you, unless you're already bisexual, you won't be attracted to men, ever. You're safe, ok? If you are bisexual, then just deal with it. Be at peace with yourself. But, above all, quit taking it out on people who have already managed to find their peace.

The other things that some gay people have told me is that while they were growing up and on into their adulthood before they came out, they were cruel to other gay people. The cruelty was different for different cases, but included political activism, virulent name calling, job discrimination, job harassment, property destruction and in extreme cases gay bashing. It is as if they believed that if they were cruel enough to gayness, it would leave them. It didn't. Eventually they came out.
 

YamiB.

Active member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
261
Reaction score
41
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
And you should have equal rights regardless of your sexual preference and I am all for that...........I do draw the line at marriage......I think what you want can be accomplished with Civil Unions.........I think it would be very wrong to change the definition of marriage............
Separate but equal is not equal. If homosexuals are given Civil Unions from the government than that's what heterosexuals should be given. The definition of marriage has changed various times throughout history sometimes including same sex couples. In America it has changed as recently as the sixties when same sex marriage was made legal.

My personal feelings are taught to me through my Roman Catholic faith......I cannot condone Gay sex because I believe it is a mortal sin just like any
other sin................We are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin regardless whether the sin is committed by a gay or straight man..........
The ideal of religious freedom put forth in the Constitution makes homosexual sex supposedly being a sin irrelevant when arguing against equal treatment for homosexuals.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Dezaad said:
The Colonel you mention proves nothing. You say that no one knows whether he was gay all along and then 'came out'. Doesn't that include you who doesn't know?

However, I do personally know several people who have stated to me that they were gay long before they came out. Some of these people were with women, some were not, before they came out. Do you know of any single person who has stated that they were straight with no attraction to the same sex, an attraction to the opposite sex and just decided to flip? Is there a single anecdotal story of such, even from a country where it is not taboo to be gay???? I seriously doubt it. Your claims that there are 'documented cases' have not been backed up in the least.

People here have asked you to answer a very simple question. Could you choose to be gay? You have refused to answer. Yes, the question is a trap for such as you. If you answer no, then it lends support to their point. If you say yes, well, you just couldn't bring yourself to say yes because you're so friggin afraid. Of What? That it might actually be true? That saying it might make it true? Well let me tell you, unless you're already bisexual, you won't be attracted to men, ever. You're safe, ok? If you are bisexual, then just deal with it. Be at peace with yourself. But, above all, quit taking it out on people who have already managed to find their peace.

The other things that some gay people have told me is that while they were growing up and on into their adulthood before they came out, they were cruel to other gay people. The cruelty was different for different cases, but included political activism, virulent name calling, job discrimination, job harassment, property destruction and in extreme cases gay bashing. It is as if they believed that if they were cruel enough to gayness, it would leave them. It didn't. Eventually they came out.

I think that is a stretched comparison. Back off a little and read the previous post...he isnt a homophobe, he just has beliefs imparted to him by a religion he and I actually share in common. It matters not how he feels about conversion therapies or whether anal sex is right...he just feels it isnt right for him. This is what I meant about the sensitivity of the issue getting in the way of productive debate.

But dont get me wrong, I am thankful that there are people like you who would come to our defense so passionately when faced with a perceived injustice.
 

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
jallman said:
I totally agree with the idea that we need quality scientific evidence to support the genetic basis of homosexuality in order for it to be accepted for what it is: simply a fact of life. Everything we have now is either emotion and prejudice based argument advocating the immoral nature of it or it is circumstantial evidence based on the observations you mentioned. I pose a further question: do you think that evidence will quell the argument or will it just rile up the extreme right to take a stronger offensive? We all know how they like to pick and choose fact to justify their prejudices.

I think that proven scientific evidence can usually drastically change people's minds. For example if scientist can figure out how the inorganic matter came together to form the emergent prokaryotic cell then they would have proved how life began. While some might say that is still the work of God many would start to put mor belief in science rather than God. The extreme right has power right now, but as time progresses and people start to accept homosexuality they will start to become very out of touch with the world like the KKK.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
js416256 said:
I think that proven scientific evidence can usually drastically change people's minds. For example if scientist can figure out how the inorganic matter came together to form the emergent prokaryotic cell then they would have proved how life began. While some might say that is still the work of God many would start to put mor belief in science rather than God. The extreme right has power right now, but as time progresses and people start to accept homosexuality they will start to become very out of touch with the world like the KKK.

I can agree with that except your last point. I think they are already out of touch and are fighting hard to create a world that justifies them.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
We are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin regardless whether the sin is committed by a gay or straight man.
I personally find it difficult to buy into the "love the sinner & hate the sin" excuse because I do not think most people are truly able to separate the two.

The people who are anti-gay do NOT, for the most part, IMHO, hate the sinner equally with the sin. The cute little catch phrase is, to me, more of a PR stunt than a truth.

I have a real problem believing that the Rapture Right can love gay people...
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The people who are anti-gay do NOT, for the most part, IMHO, hate the sinner equally with the sin. The cute little catch phrase is, to me, more of a PR stunt than a truth.

Like you said that is your opinion........I personally hate no one straight or gay........It is not for me to tell gay people how to act in the privacy of their bedroom and I won't do that..............I am imperfect and a sinner.....I hate the sins I commit just like I hate the sins other people commit.......I believe on judgment day all of us will have to answer to our maker and that is good enough for me.......

I don't know if people are born gay or not.......I don't think anyone does know or probably ever will.........My 2 gay friends believe the same thing...........They are partners and great people....Sadly I had another gay friend who lost his partner to AIDS.........I have been called a bigot and a homophobe in this forum because of my opinion on gay marriage..........My gay friends, the people that actually know me tell me its not so...........

Like I said I want all Americans to have equal rights but I can never change my beliefs on the sacrament of marriage.............
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
yea officially lets just institute civil unions. That gives them the rights. whats the problem. Eventually as time goes by, and as gay couples start referring to themselves as being married, the term will become more accepted.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Like you said that is your opinion........I personally hate no one straight or gay........It is not for me to tell gay people how to act in the privacy of their bedroom and I won't do that.
I was not referring to you personally in my last post. I was referring to what I believe to be the vast majority of people who claim they "Hate the sin but Love the sinner."

It was not directed at you personally since I do not know you.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
nkgupta80 said:
yea officially lets just institute civil unions. That gives them the rights. whats the problem. Eventually as time goes by, and as gay couples start referring to themselves as being married, the term will become more accepted.
Separate but equal is not legitimate in my eyes in any circumstances. I think it's an excuse used by people to justify their prejudice.

The claim that marriage is a great heterosexual institution is laughable to me since more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. If marriage is so sacred why don't people stay married?

The religious argument is pure bullshit to me too. Our government has no business legislating anything based on religion.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
26 X World Champs said:
Separate but equal is not legitimate in my eyes in any circumstances. I think it's an excuse used by people to justify their prejudice.

The claim that marriage is a great heterosexual institution is laughable to me since more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. If marriage is so sacred why don't people stay married?

The religious argument is pure bullshit to me too. Our government has no business legislating anything based on religion.

I dont think civil unions creates a separate but equal scenario. I believe it is a legitimate compromise that takes the religious objection out of the loop entirely. Any objection to the idea of offering civil unions that gay rights activists bring up I believe is simply arguing semantics or pushing for a religious change and any objection the right brings has to simply be fueled by bigotry. Plus someone was right earlier when they said the lines of distinction would eventually blur and dissolve anyway.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
26 X World Champs said:
Separate but equal is not legitimate in my eyes in any circumstances. I think it's an excuse used by people to justify their prejudice.

The claim that marriage is a great heterosexual institution is laughable to me since more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. If marriage is so sacred why don't people stay married?

The religious argument is pure bullshit to me too. Our government has no business legislating anything based on religion.

I certainly agree with that.

I talked to a guy this last spring who went on and on about how gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. You know, because it would ruin the sanctity of marriage...turns out he was in the middle of his third divorce.

What the heck is government doing involved in marriage in the first place?
 

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
While I think that the whole “separate but equal” scenario invokes the same feelings attributed to Plessy v. Ferguson I think that if nationwide civil unions were granted people would start to see that the theoretical detrimental effects of granting homosexual couples are false which would ultimately lead to the government legalizing gay marriage. But even civil unions have little hope to pass because really gay marriage has turned out to be more of a political tool rather than a civil rights issue. Personally if I was a Republican who was running for the Senate or president in the 2008 election I would definitely be opposed to gay marriage because you would get the vote of the Bible Belt and probably the rest of the South, Catholics, and Christians. But as gay marriage is being used as a political tool the lives of many gay families are being toyed with so Republicans can get into office. I think that many Republicans have seen that by using these “hot topics” like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. they can get into office but there have been many cases where the Republicans don’t do anything to stop these “immoral” atrocities when in office. So really these family groups and religious groups have proven to be just pawns in the Republicans’ strategy to get into office.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Separate but equal is not legitimate in my eyes in any circumstances. I think it's an excuse used by people to justify their prejudice.

The claim that marriage is a great heterosexual institution is laughable to me since more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. If marriage is so sacred why don't people stay married?

The religious argument is pure bullshit to me too. Our government has no business legislating anything based on religion.

People that put the institute of Marriage down always try and cite the 50 percent divorce rate which is very badly flawed because it includes very young people who got married on a whim...........If you throw those kind of marriages out of the equation and go to people over 30 you will find that the divorce rate in the U.S. is about 25 percent........
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
js416256 said:
While I think that the whole “separate but equal” scenario invokes the same feelings attributed to Plessy v. Ferguson I think that if nationwide civil unions were granted people would start to see that the theoretical detrimental effects of granting homosexual couples are false which would ultimately lead to the government legalizing gay marriage. But even civil unions have little hope to pass because really gay marriage has turned out to be more of a political tool rather than a civil rights issue. Personally if I was a Republican who was running for the Senate or president in the 2008 election I would definitely be opposed to gay marriage because you would get the vote of the Bible Belt and probably the rest of the South, Catholics, and Christians. But as gay marriage is being used as a political tool the lives of many gay families are being toyed with so Republicans can get into office. I think that many Republicans have seen that by using these “hot topics” like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. they can get into office but there have been many cases where the Republicans don’t do anything to stop these “immoral” atrocities when in office. So really these family groups and religious groups have proven to be just pawns in the Republicans’ strategy to get into office.

I would never cast my vote based on social issues only but I do admit thry have a huge influence on who I vote for..........
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Separate but equal is not legitimate in my eyes in any circumstances. I think it's an excuse used by people to justify their prejudice.

The claim that marriage is a great heterosexual institution is laughable to me since more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. If marriage is so sacred why don't people stay married?

The religious argument is pure bullshit to me too. Our government has no business legislating anything based on religion.

But it is seperate, and most people would like to not be included in the same catagory as a gay couple, not out of hatred, but out of common sense. It is the way that marriage is defined, and many don't like the idea of changing this definition just to appease a small percentage of Americans. It is a religious experience for many, and some gay couples want nothing to do with that, I say great, go lobby for your own special brand of union, and leave ours as it is defined. This debate is the only thing fueling the anger, as most people are fine with homosexuals, but not when they demand to change the institution of marriage. I think you are going to see civil unions very soon, but unfortunately who knows what else is going to emerge from this? Will three people now want to marry, how about brother or sister, or maybe just roomates who want to get some extra tax relief?

I mean.....we have to be fair right, what's good for the goose, is good.........
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
But why can it not be a religous experiance for homosexuals as well?

I agree with 26 x World Champs, I don't think a modern day democratic government should be basing law on religion, it has no place telling a particular religion it cannot marry two men, or two women. But equally if a religion does not believe in gay marriage, then thats there choice, question it and debate it, but its their choice.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Plain old me said:
But why can it not be a religous experiance for homosexuals as well?

I agree with 26 x World Champs, I don't think a modern day democratic government should be basing law on religion, it has no place telling a particular religion it cannot marry two men, or two women. But equally if a religion does not believe in gay marriage, then thats there choice, question it and debate it, but its their choice.


The law is not based on religion as far as the government is concerned. The reason for the act in which they under took this law most certainly had religion, and religious implications and roots, but it is just a law at the end of the day. If this were not the case, then you could not be married at the court house, it would have to be a church of some kind. My question is why can't the government dictate who can marry? They don't allow triads to marry, or relatives, some even insist on blood tests before granting a license, there are obvious rules in place. The world is obviously changing, and we must change with it, civil unions would accomplish this just perfectly.


Oh sorry, forgot your question, lol. I think it can be for them, as I don't celebrate my faith in any church, so should they not be limited. Some churches are even going forward in allowing gay marriage, and I have no problem with that, as long as the distinction is made.
 
Last edited:

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
But it is seperate, and most people would like to not be included in the same catagory as a gay couple, not out of hatred, but out of common sense. It is the way that marriage is defined, and many don't like the idea of changing this definition just to appease a small percentage of Americans. It is a religious experience for many, and some gay couples want nothing to do with that, I say great, go lobby for your own special brand of union, and leave ours as it is defined. This debate is the only thing fueling the anger, as most people are fine with homosexuals, but not when they demand to change the institution of marriage. I think you are going to see civil unions very soon, but unfortunately who knows what else is going to emerge from this? Will three people now want to marry, how about brother or sister, or maybe just roomates who want to get some extra tax relief?

I mean.....we have to be fair right, what's good for the goose, is good.........

The definitions of a typical marriage and family have undergone many changes over the past 100 years which of course is inevitable because change is inevitable. So really trying to sustain this current definition of marriage will pretty much be futile because with each year and each new generation our culture changes and once disapproved topics are becoming accepted social norms. I also think that the claim that many want to protect the institution of marriage is really just a way for people to mask their true feelings of homosexuality. In essence they are really saying heterosexual relationships are better than homosexual relationships and homosexuals will ruin our society if they are given equal rights. Many of these detrimental effects you are describing are very exaggerated and would have a rare chance of passing. You mentioned roommates could get married for the tax relief but a guy and a girl can do that today, plus many opponents of gay marriage focus on the family and the children which this scenario really wouldn't encompass (even the most perfect system can be manipulated by people).
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
js416256 said:
The definitions of a typical marriage and family have undergone many changes over the past 100 years which of course is inevitable because change is inevitable. So really trying to sustain this current definition of marriage will pretty much be futile because with each year and each new generation our culture changes and once disapproved topics are becoming accepted social norms. I also think that the claim that many want to protect the institution of marriage is really just a way for people to mask their true feelings of homosexuality. In essence they are really saying heterosexual relationships are better than homosexual relationships and homosexuals will ruin our society if they are given equal rights. Many of these detrimental effects you are describing are very exaggerated and would have a rare chance of passing. You mentioned roommates could get married for the tax relief but a guy and a girl can do that today, plus many opponents of gay marriage focus on the family and the children which this scenario really wouldn't encompass (even the most perfect system can be manipulated by people).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being against gay marriage, as a parent, I know I would try to talk my child out of that lifestyle, especially if he were a young man. 50% of all AIDS cases reported in this country are gay males, this is a frightening figure for any parent to worry about, and I don't think you'll find many that will apologize for being concerned. The family should be considered here, as it is what is at the root of a decent, strong, healthy society. We are losing families by the thousands everyday, and many children are left with little guidance, and the lessons that both parents bring in raising children. There is really no substitue for a mother and a father, though some do make it through o.k, they are certainly not the norm. The love of a complete family is something we should never give up on, even if the world is changing, some things we can't afford to lose, or change, this is certainly one of those things.
 

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being against gay marriage, as a parent, I know I would try to talk my child out of that lifestyle, especially if he were a young man. 50% of all AIDS cases reported in this country are gay males, this is a frightening figure for any parent to worry about, and I don't think you'll find many that will apologize for being concerned. The family should be considered here, as it is what is at the root of a decent, strong, healthy society. We are losing families by the thousands everyday, and many children are left with little guidance, and the lessons that both parents bring in raising children. There is really no substitue for a mother and a father, though some do make it through o.k, they are certainly not the norm. The love of a complete family is something we should never give up on, even if the world is changing, some things we can't afford to lose, or change, this is certainly one of those things.

I really don't understand how AIDS suddenly comes into this argument because if we are talking about gay marriage we are talking about monogamous gay couples, not promiscuous single guys having a good time. Really if people are concerned about AIDS in the debate over gay marriage they are roughly twenty years behind the times and still believe the stereotype that only gay men have AIDS. There are many orphans throughout the world and while having a mother and father is sociological ideal do you think they would turn out better if they had parents to love them, or do you think that leaving them without any sort of parental figure will help them psychologically? (I think common sense can answer this question) Also you said that not having a mother and father is of course not the norm, but I vaguely remember something about America being a "melting pot", a diverse mix of people from different backgrounds with different beliefs and lives. But I may be wrong, maybe I'm confusing "melting pot" America with the country that believes that if you are not part of the norm you should be socially ostracized and denied rights. Claims that homosexuals wouldn't make good parents are really insensible because many claim the children would be plagued by mental disorders from the ridicule and alienation of others, but is that really a justification? Are they really saying that we don't think homosexuals should be parents because we are not ready to accept you and so we, and our children will mock, taunt, and possibly assault your offspring? I don't know about everyone else but if I child can find a loving home I don't care if the parents are gay, straight, married, divorced, or single. Now of course many are thinking immediately of the downfall of society but really society is going to change and our perceptions of morality and immorality are going to change. These predictions of a future society are only theoretical and I think if we provide our future generations with loving homes that's all we can really do because can we really predict the future?
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
js416256 said:
I really don't understand how AIDS suddenly comes into this argument because if we are talking about gay marriage we are talking about monogamous gay couples, not promiscuous single guys having a good time. Really if people are concerned about AIDS in the debate over gay marriage they are roughly twenty years behind the times and still believe the stereotype that only gay men have AIDS. There are many orphans throughout the world and while having a mother and father is sociological ideal do you think they would turn out better if they had parents to love them, or do you think that leaving them without any sort of parental figure will help them psychologically? (I think common sense can answer this question) Also you said that not having a mother and father is of course not the norm, but I vaguely remember something about America being a "melting pot", a diverse mix of people from different backgrounds with different beliefs and lives. But I may be wrong, maybe I'm confusing "melting pot" America with the country that believes that if you are not part of the norm you should be socially ostracized and denied rights. Claims that homosexuals wouldn't make good parents are really insensible because many claim the children would be plagued by mental disorders from the ridicule and alienation of others, but is that really a justification? Are they really saying that we don't think homosexuals should be parents because we are not ready to accept you and so we, and our children will mock, taunt, and possibly assault your offspring? I don't know about everyone else but if I child can find a loving home I don't care if the parents are gay, straight, married, divorced, or single. Now of course many are thinking immediately of the downfall of society but really society is going to change and our perceptions of morality and immorality are going to change. These predictions of a future society are only theoretical and I think if we provide our future generations with loving homes that's all we can really do because can we really predict the future?

You really seem to be arguing with yourself sir, as I never insinuated that gay people could not be good parents, or that they should not be parents at all. I am talking largely about what is the best for society, and parents who are both male, and female are the best possible match. You could spin so many different scenario's until your head hurts, but this is a common sense fact. How often do children emulate their parents, and practice what they learn, this is what concerns me. Homosexuality is not normal, and you can't try to prove that to someone by making them feel guilty because you choose to label them as hateful, close minded individuals. Again, there is nothing wrong with pointing out abnormal behavior, and trying to keep your child from engaging in an abnormal lifestyle, especially when the dangers are so great. I brought up those staggering figures because they are just that, staggering. I am all for this pattern changing immediately, if not sooner, and civil unions may help, but they have done little to keep people together thus far, as so many of you so often mention.
 

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
You really seem to be arguing with yourself sir, as I never insinuated that gay people could not be good parents, or that they should not be parents at all. I am talking largely about what is the best for society, and parents who are both male, and female are the best possible match. You could spin so many different scenario's until your head hurts, but this is a common sense fact. How often do children emulate their parents, and practice what they learn, this is what concerns me. Homosexuality is not normal, and you can't try to prove that to someone by making them feel guilty because you choose to label them as hateful, close minded individuals. Again, there is nothing wrong with pointing out abnormal behavior, and trying to keep your child from engaging in an abnormal lifestyle, especially when the dangers are so great. I brought up those staggering figures because they are just that, staggering. I am all for this pattern changing immediately, if not sooner, and civil unions may help, but they have done little to keep people together thus far, as so many of you so often mention.

If I seemed at all condescending or overly defensive I didn't mean it, I'm just getting caught up in the debate. While it is believed that two heterosexual parents would be best for children (which really can't just be justified by common sense, it would be nice to see a credible sociological study) life isn't that perfect, not everyone can born into the ideal family, we deal with the hand we're dealt and just because you don't have the ideal set of parents doesn't mean that you will become some kind of societal deviant. Now if you look past posts there was a lot of discussion on the origins of homosexuality so to just say its abnormal without any sort of justification or evidence really doesn't make your point valid. If you are saying homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle why even grant this group of people with some sort of mental defect any "special rights" ? If children can learn from their homosexual parents to become homosexuals why would you want to grant them civil unions, would you really want more homosexuals? Ok but returning back to realm of science I think the assumption that children of homosexuals would be very confused with sexuality makes it sound as though the parents are not parenting their children and discussing the children's feelings (something I think all parents should be doing). Ok I also think the use of the AIDS statistic to try to prove that the "homosexual lifestyle" is dangerous has a couple holes in it because really would it only be applying to the promiscuous or certain accidents. You could apply the same situation to other STDs and say heterosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle" (hey maybe people can choose to heterosexual). You could say driving is a dangerous lifestyle but most people would counter that driving is only dangerous if you decide to not follow the rules and take many dangerous risks. Also your 50% statistic is true but when only 17,969/43,717 in 2003 (via http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#hivest) really shows that homosexuals are recovering from such a devastating epidemic and practicing safe sex.
 

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
js416256 said:
If I seemed at all condescending or overly defensive I didn't mean it, I'm just getting caught up in the debate. While it is believed that two heterosexual parents would be best for children (which really can't just be justified by common sense, it would be nice to see a credible sociological study) life isn't that perfect, not everyone can born into the ideal family, we deal with the hand we're dealt and just because you don't have the ideal set of parents doesn't mean that you will become some kind of societal deviant. Now if you look past posts there was a lot of discussion on the origins of homosexuality so to just say its abnormal without any sort of justification or evidence really doesn't make your point valid. If you are saying homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle why even grant this group of people with some sort of mental defect any "special rights" ? If children can learn from their homosexual parents to become homosexuals why would you want to grant them civil unions, would you really want more homosexuals? Ok but returning back to realm of science I think the assumption that children of homosexuals would be very confused with sexuality makes it sound as though the parents are not parenting their children and discussing the children's feelings (something I think all parents should be doing). Ok I also think the use of the AIDS statistic to try to prove that the "homosexual lifestyle" is dangerous has a couple holes in it because really would it only be applying to the promiscuous or certain accidents. You could apply the same situation to other STDs and say heterosexuality is a "dangerous lifestyle" (hey maybe people can choose to heterosexual). You could say driving is a dangerous lifestyle but most people would counter that driving is only dangerous if you decide to not follow the rules and take many dangerous risks. Also your 50% statistic is true but when only 17,969/43,717 in 2003 (via http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#hivest) really shows that homosexuals are recovering from such a devastating epidemic and practicing safe sex.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, as I can only give my opinions at this point, and I am sure you know where I stand on this issue by now. I will just close by saying I am tolerant, and I can even understand the gay lifestyle. My goal is to promote family, and my idea of family is a man and a woman, two people bringing a life in to this world, and raising the child to be the best they can be. I don't doubt gay families can work, they are working, but kids can be so cruel, and I would not want to be raised with that burden. To have to go through your entire life defending the lifestyle of your parents, that's not fair to the child. The thought that the ones you love, that people do not understand them, some even hate them, and for what, just because they choose to be different. I struggle with that, should they really raise kids if they can't even tolerate the sex that brings children in to the world? I guess my issue has always been with the gay male, as the gay female has that instinct, and certainly more right as the person who gives birth.
 

js416256

New member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deegan said:
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, as I can only give my opinions at this point, and I am sure you know where I stand on this issue by now.

I was thinking the exact same thing. But to conclude our daylong debate I think the phrase "deal with the hand you are dealt" has a lot of importance over the hostility the children of gay parents receive. Kids will always find something to ridicule their peers about, and everyone has been ridiculed at least once as a child and so it is literally impossible to try to shield the children from the harsh words of their peers. What about all of the kids who look different, sound different, or act differently should we hide them in the basement so they won't be ridiculed by their fellow children? I think not. I think all parents need to teach their children how to deal with ridicule from an early age so when it inevitably occurs they will know how to handle it.
 
Top Bottom