Support NeoGAF

[pxleyes]

I didn't mean to imply all gay people are young or immature. Just illustrating the concept of wanting something just because you don't have it. Moreover, it's not the maturity of the gay professor that I think could damage a child, but the immaturity of a child growin in this environment.



I don't like how gays compare themselves to blacks. First off, gays aren't a race, they are a fetish. Second, I don't especially see how anyone could compare the shit gay people have had to deal with (and I don't want to minimize this), with slavery and the resulting race relations in this nation.

But I would say there are such things as S&M lifestyles, or mountain climbing lifestyles ect. That gay people get offended by thier own catagorization speaks to thier own self loathing. Sort of how words like retarded phase out, because they imply that somebody is handicapped, and that isn't pleasant.

Natural life is reproduction. Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a fetish, and one I personally don't care if people participate in. But I think fetish rights have simply gone too far. Especially when there are potential victims, especially children, at stake.



I'm not sure how to say it more plainly. In my opinion, the gay agenda cant see the forest for the trees.



I'm not clamoring for change.

Intolerance on this scale is sickening.

 

[Cherubae]

I would think these types of problems, should they arise would show up around 13 or so. You know when everyone starts talking about sex as children.

True, you've got a point I was raised in a heterosexual environment (before she divorced and found what she was "looking for") and I wasn't raised as a boy so I don't know what happends when a male turns 13. The boy is currently 12 and seems to be doing just fine for now.

She's also raising the boy's little sister, who my mom has known since she was just a baby. Sometimes I worry they're pampering the girl and scolding the boy, but when I go visit mom's place the little girl gets scolded just as much as the boy for doing bad things (talking back, throwing things, etc). Any non-gay parent would do the exact same thing.

What's really amazing is my mom's partner, who is only a few years older than I am. I believe it was my mom who started the ball rolling about being the guardians for these kids, and her partner could of objected at any time and left. She hasn't though and still continues to be with my mom and the two little kids that they are raising together.

The environment these kids are in is no different than what my bother and I grew up with. ( *edit* except there isn't a mentally-abusive father figure in the picture. These kids are going to do better in that aspect.)

 

[Deleted member 1235]

More controversially, we also draw attention to evidence in a few studies that adult children of lesbian or gay parents are somewhat more likely to engage in homoerotic relationships.

Can't see that not causing some problems.

Ah well. Population is getting out of control anyways.

 

[teh_pwn]

While I wouldn't prefer having two men as parents, it's better than nothing as long as they pass a background check. It's not like all gay men have drug orgies, have AIDs or some other stupid generalization.

The only reason why it would be hard on child to have same-sex parents is because of the hate homophobes and religous fundamentalists inject into society.

More controversially, we also draw attention to evidence in a few studies that adult children of lesbian or gay parents are somewhat more likely to engage in homoerotic relationships.

You can't make someone gay. You can raise someone to be more open to an already existing bisexuality, perhaps.

 

[darscot]

I love how people say homosexuality isn't natural yet it's occurs in most mammals? I guess those mammals just have strange fetishes. Must be all the MTV they watch.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Natural life is reproduction. Homosexuality isn't natural. It is a fetish, and one I personally don't care if people participate in. But I think fetish rights have simply gone too far. Especially when there are potential victims, especially children, at stake.

1) Homosexuality isn't a "fetish". Tens of thousands of testimonies and dozens of scientific studies have proven beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. to everyone except fundies and homophobes) that the majority of homosexuals are what they are because they were born that way. While it's possible for a heterosexual to learn to enjoy sex with people of the same gender, and the opposite for homosexuals, there are very, very few specialists who still doubt homosexuality is genetic.

2) What the hell is this "not natural" crap? Humans have been going against nature for hundreds of years. Vaccines aren't natural. Contraception isn't natural. Technology and medicine as a whole aren't natural. And no one except a few wackos give a flying shit what's natural or not, except when it's useful as another argument to defend their bigoted point of view. There's even a name for this dishonest little tactic: The natural fallacy.

3) Yes, the children are potential victims... of emotional and physical abuse in orphanages. Are you seriously saying that living with loving, homosexual parents is a worse fate than living in an orphanage for your entire childhood?
Sure, life will be a bit tougher for the first generation of those adopted kids, but not tougher than for kids with poor parents, for instance, and certainly a lot more pleasant than with violent ones. But eventually society will adapt, just as it's adapted for every other social change in the past, and these kids will be accepted without a second thought. Or do you suggest society should remain stagnant because every transition that could happen might cause a little harm to some of its members? Progress isn't possible without a little risk, and a little discomfort.

 

[Lindsay]

>.>

<.<

+1 Texas

*hides*

 

[MrPing1000]

bah let the gays and lesbians have kids your sexual preference does not = how good a parent u are. Silly silly silly.

 

[Chipopo]

First off, gays aren't a race, they are a fetish.

Foster parents aren't denied because they're in to bondage. The state of Texas is the one elevating sexual orientation beyond the realm of fetish. Find a cohesive argument.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I personaly would not want gay parants, nor do I think it is Gay foster parants or Abusive parants. There are non abusive non gay people.

Heck, why stop there. There are non abusive non gay photogenic people. Let's limit it to them. Don't want the kids to have to go to school and hear cracks about their fatass foster parents.

 

[galeninjapan]

Intolerance on this scale is sickening.

"Why do all you turds have to be so intolerant?"

 

[Mercury Fred]

>.>

<.<

+1 Texas

*hides*

Gee, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

 

[Lindsay]

Gee, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

Better to state my opinion and quickly exit then get into a meaningless debate with some pretend scholars.

 

[pxleyes]

Better to state my opinion and quickly exit then get into a meaningless debate with some pretend scholars.

you dont have to pretend to be a coward though do you?

 

[Spike Spiegel]

I think you should've stayed hidden, Lindsay.

 

[Nerevar]

you dont have to pretend to be a coward though do you?

he's only scared because he has nothing besides empty convictions to justify his ignorant and intolerant perspectives. It's ok, he'll be sure to tune into O'Reilly later on to get a "fair and balanced" representation of the law where pretend specialists who get to go on TV repeat his viewpoint over and over until they're all convinced it's true. Because, you know, on shows like that they don't have reasonable people like -Jinx- who actually demand that they produce data to back up their outrageous claims.

 

[pxleyes]

he's only scared because he has nothing besides empty convictions to justify his ignorant and intolerant perspectives. It's ok, he'll be sure to tune into O'Reilly later on to get a "fair and balanced" representation of the law where pretend specialists who get to go on TV repeat his viewpoint over and over until they're all convinced it's true.

When is that asshat on tv anyways? I would love to ee his reaction to this law.

EDIT: nvm. he is on now.

 

[levious]

Better to state my opinion and quickly exit then get into a meaningless debate with some pretend scholars.

so is your bigotry real or pretend?

 

[FiRez]

My english is too poor to contribute here, but I just need to say that the roles of a mother and a father can't be replaced, and yes I know that there's a lot of broken homes but having a mother and a father is the ideal situation.

 

[Lindsay]

you dont have to pretend to be a coward though do you?

I'm not pretending. *is a coward*

I think you should've stayed hidden, Lindsay.

Yeah I goofed ^_^;; That was actually meant to be a response via PM. I hit quote so I could c&p what he posted then got distracted then came back to my PC forgetting where I was and hit the reply button like I'm used ta doing.

he's only scared because he has nothing besides empty convictions to justify his ignorant and intolerant perspectives. It's ok, he'll be sure to tune into O'Reilly later on to get a "fair and balanced" representation of the law where pretend specialists who get to go on TV repeat his viewpoint over and over until they're all convinced it's true. Because, you know, on shows like that they don't have reasonable people like -Jinx- who actually demand that they produce data to back up their outrageous claims.

Where's this "he" stuff coming from? o.o? And I stated before that I do not watch any TV news station. Aside from local stuff, there are no longer news reporters there's just news commentators. An that's one of the things that broke the straw on this female camels back to quit watching stuff like that.

so is your bigotry real or pretend?

Common sense /=/ bigotry.

:lol

you people are so dumb.

"You people" ? So you're anti-gay? You don't know which team I'm on. Or maybe you do now.



Anyway I'm staying outta replying to this thread any further so if ya wanna make digs at me do it in a PM or something.

 

[levious]

calling it common sense makes you even more of a bigot... but I can agree that I don't want to debate this either, especially with you.

 

[Nerevar]

Common sense /=/ bigotry.

:lol

you people are so dumb.

 

[teh_pwn]

People will look back a hundred years from now, and see these widespread homophobes as the same way as we look at the scum that suppressed women and blacks in the 1800s.

But hell, what a better day to spread idoitic hatred than Hitler's birthday.

 

[galeninjapan]

Not everyone who agrees with these laws is a homophobe.

 

[nitewulf]

Anyway I'm staying outta replying to this thread any further so if ya wanna make digs at me do it in a PM or something.

you sound lonely.

 

[videogamer]

Not everyone who agrees with these laws is a homophobe.

I agree. The word homophobe may be inaccurate and too kind. These are people who are willing, if not eager, to legalize inequality against love. "Phobe" kind of suggests that they do not know what they are doing--that it is some kind of reactionary fear. These people know what they are doing.

 

[ohamsie]

Lindsay, if you aren't going to add anything to the discussion, why did you bother to post at all?

 

[Nerevar]

my favorite is this:

Anyway I'm staying outta replying to this thread any further so if ya wanna make digs at me do it in a PM or something.

Followed immediately by this:

"You people" ? So you're anti-gay? You don't know which team I'm on. Or maybe you do now.

So I'll respond and hope that you "accidentally" click on the thread to read it, because you're "staying outtta this thread"


You say that you're against gay marriage and then you claim that it's "common sense", but then respond that that wasn't the meaning of what you said. Either you're a bigot or you don't know how the english language works. Pick one.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

We aren't in a position to debate whether homosexual partners are in a better or worse position to parent children. It's the job of the adoption agents, not us, to investigate each applicant and decide whether they're worthy of adopting children. If an industry professional can find two people are suited to become parents, then I'll stand by their assessment.

The simple fact is, gays, straights, robots, etc who want children for the hell of it aren't going to receive them. We know that sexual preference is a trait we have no decision in; no one decides to become gay and no one decides to become straight. Therefore, homosexualism is no more a fetish than heterosexualism. Once you accept the fact that homosexuality is inherent, and that adopt agents don't just hand children out to any random fucker who applies, the debate just gets retarded.

 

[galeninjapan]

I agree. The word homophobe may be inaccurate and too kind. These are people who are willing, if not eager, to legalize inequality against love. "Phobe" kind of suggests that they do not know what they are doing--that it is some kind of reactionary fear. These people know what they are doing.

This doesn't really help a debate, calling people names and such. Both sides have valid points and we must respect each others argument. However, the MAJORITY (and Im not talking a slight majority Im talking at least 75%) of the population does not agree with you. Are they all homophobes? One could say you are Phobic towards homophobes. Does that help my argument? No, just as your side calling people homophobes doesn't help you.

I do NOT believe these people are doing these things maliciously. Im sure they mean best in their view.

We know that sexual preference is a trait we have no decision in; no one decides to become gay and no one decides to become straight.

I think this is the core of the debate. One side belives it IS a choice and one does not.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

My english is too poor to contribute here, but I just need to say that the roles of a mother and a father can't be replaced, and yes I know that there's a lot of broken homes but having a mother and a father is the ideal situation.

I agree completely. In a perfect world, we'd have a mother and father in every home who could protect and nurture their children to their full extent. In a perfect world, there would be no single moms, there would be no single dads, there would be no deadbeat parents. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Unfortunately, that utopia will never be realized, so we have to give orphans the next best thing: a solid parental unit, be it gay, straight, or single.

 

[videogamer]

This doesn't really help a debate, calling people names and such.

Me or the others? If anything, I agreed that the word "homophobe" should be phased out.

However, the MAJORITY (and Im not talking a slight majority Im talking at least 75%) of the population does not agree with you. Are they all homophobes? One could say you are Phobic towards homophobes. Does that help my argument? No, just as your side calling people homophobes doesn't help you.

Uhh... I'm calling for the word "homophobe" to be used in a more accurate fashion.

I do NOT believe these people are doing these things maliciously.

Did I say that?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I do NOT believe these people are doing these things maliciously. Im sure they mean best in their view.

I've used this quote before, but it really applies well here: “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” - Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom

The fact of the matter is, people are stubborn. The majority of those opposing gay marriage/adoption aren't hate filled bigots who want to oppress their fellow human--they're people living in a different time that had a different set of moral rules. Until those in favour of gay marriage demonstrate how wrong their oppenents aree(in some cases this is impossible: religious fundamentalists will never be swayed in their beliefs. I can respect that), no change will occur.

 

[levious]

Maybe some people are confused and think that there's some overflow of adoptive/foster parents. That's not the case. Sure, if you want to adopt a newborn, you're gonna wait in line, and you'll have a tough time getting through the process. Meanwhile there's loads of older kids, especially minorities, who aren't nearly as desired. How does it make sense to close off segments of the population to this process. And if any way you equate homosexuality with other red flags such as drug/alcohol abuse or violent behavior, etc. then there's little hope for you.

Galen,

Your figures were pulled directly from your ass and are hopelessly inaccurate.

 

[galeninjapan]

they're people living in a different time that had a different set of moral rules.

Different time? This is just ignorance, did they get in a time machine and come from the past? No, they have just as much right to have their view as anyone.

 

[galeninjapan]

Maybe some people are confused and think that there's some overflow of adoptive/foster parents. That's not the case. Sure, if you want to adopt a newborn, you're gonna wait in line, and you'll have a tough time getting through the process. Meanwhile there's loads of older kids, especially minorities, who aren't nearly as desired. How does it make sense to close off segments of the population to this process. And if any way you equate homosexuality with other red flags such as drug/alcohol abuse or violent behavior, etc. then there's little hope for you.

Galen,

Your figures were pulled directly from your ass and are hopelessly inaccurate.

By all means I am open to be proven wrong. Do you have any figures?

And, how do you know my name?

 

[Spencerr]

If a couple is deemed to have the qualities of good parents and able to provide a good life for a child by a professional in the field, who are you to argue with that? A bigot.

 

[Nerevar]

Until those in favour of gay marriage demonstrate how wrong their oppenents aree(in some cases this is impossible: religious fundamentalists will never be swayed in their beliefs. I can respect that), no change will occur.

IMO, this is a major problem with the left. Why should this be respected? These people have no rational basis for this worldview. I mean, do you respect that Osama Bin Laden wants to kill Americans, because it conforms to his religious worldview? Do you respect that Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jewish race because he favored Arayanism? Then why do you have to respect the a group of people denying others civil rights because their "religious beliefs" rationalize that kind fo behavior? It's absurd, and deserves ridicule.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I'm fairly certain this issue came up from a desire on the part of homosexuals to be parents. I'd love to hear of any study that shows there are no consequences to unnatural family structures.

Correction: I'm fairly certain this issue came up from a desire on the part of DECENT HUMAN BEINGS to be parents.

There are consequences to being raised by ANY two individuals. Individual parent personality and behavior is a FAR, FAR larger factor in a child's rearing than any sexual orientation.

The concern over "bullying" assumes that the kid being raised is like you: a totally insecure American male. YOU might be disturbed that your parents are gay; a healthy kid raised by intelligent, capable homosexual parents may have very little reason for insecurity.

 

[galeninjapan]

Then why do you have to respect the a group of people denying others civil rights because their "religious beliefs" rationalize that kind fo behavior? It's absurd, and deserves ridicule.

Sometimes it doesn't even originate from religious beliefs. And dont lower yourself to ridicule, that only degrades an argument.

 

[levious]

By all means I am open to be proven wrong. Do you have any figures?

And, how do you know my name?

For texas your assumption might be close (but honestly even in Texas I doubt it'd be much over 60/65%), but nation-wide it seems to hover around 50-55% oppose gay adoption. Don't know that I've seen a post-election poll but prior it seemed to be aligned with the percentage of people opposing gay marriage.

Unfortunately these studies/polls never seem to break down the questions further, like I'd like to see a followup question asked about same-sex couples adopting each other's biological kids.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Different time? This is just ignorance, did they get in a time machine and come from the past? No, they have just as much right to have their view as anyone.

Yeah, they have a right to that view. They also have the right to have the wrong view--I never said otherwise. I did say that this portion of the anti-gay marriage/abortion crowd didn't have a progressive viewpoint due to the time period they grew up in.

 

[videogamer]

Sometimes it doesn't even originate from religious beliefs.

However, the most vocal and influencial anti-gay contingent does what it does because of religion. There may be other opponents of expanding gay rights, but they do no necessarily carry the same weight. Thus, they do not merit nearly as much attention.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

IMO, this is a major problem with the left. Why should this be respected? These people have no rational basis for this worldview. I mean, do you respect that Osama Bin Laden wants to kill Americans, because it conforms to his religious worldview? Do you respect that Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jewish race because he favored Arayanism? Then why do you have to respect the a group of people denying others civil rights because their "religious beliefs" rationalize that kind fo behavior? It's absurd, and deserves ridicule.

I know it's hard to believe, but there are some rational Christian fundamentalists who aren't complete nutbags. The bible DOES condemn homosexuality, so why should its most ardent followers not do the same? Comparing this group of people to Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous, because Osama Bin Laden twists religion for his own purposes. What he is doing is not a part of the Muslim religion, it's not even a decent interpretation of the Muslim religion. Christian fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality do so because the bible tells them to. I can respect deeply religious people; you, apparently, can't do the same.

 

[Mercury Fred]

I'm still waiting for akascream to back up his claim.

 

[Drinky Crow]

What about being "deeply religious" merits respect?

 

[Mercury Fred]

I know it's hard to believe, but there are some rational Christian fundamentalists who aren't complete nutbags. The bible DOES condemn homosexuality

...according to some interpretations. And it also arguably condemns eating shellfish, working on the sabbath, mixing milk and meat, etc. etc. etc. But these Christian fundamentalists don't observe that stuff. Which brings us to

Comparing this group of people to Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous, because Osama Bin Laden twists religion for his own purposes.

This is exactly what many fundamentalist Christians do. They pick and choose through the Bible for concepts that suit their own purposes. How are they different?

 

[Spencerr]

What about being "deeply religious" merits respect?

What Drinky? You don't think blind faith is good?!? Surely you must respect someone's ability to be force fed "facts" and take it without ever thinking for themselves...

I thought you loved fanboys. [/sarcasm]

That's right I went there, I said overly religous people are deity fanboys.

 

[Nerevar]

Christian fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality do so because the bible tells them to. I can respect deeply religious people; you, apparently, can't do the same.

I know it's a tired analogy, but the Bible also explicitly supports slavery. Is that a valid justification for owning slaves? What I have a problem with is people who cherry-pick whatever they want from their own religious texts to form justifications for their own belief systems (usually passed down through their religious leaders). So you disagree with the OBL argument, fine - what about his followers? At what point do you draw the line and say "these people are wrong"? I think if people can't make a rational, valid justification for their beliefs than those beliefs deserve ridicule.

And for the record, my collegiate roommates were a devout muslim and a relatively fundamentalist Christion, so I'm used to these debates. These people were also capable of producing valid justifications for real-world problems that coincided with their beliefs. Giving people a free pass because "the good book says so" is just too easy an out for these people and allows them to believe that they don't have to produce justifications for anything.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

...according to some interpretations. And it also arguably condemns eating shellfish, working on the sabbath, mixing milk and meat, etc. etc. etc. But these Christian fundamentalists don't observe that stuff. Which brings us to
This is exactly what many fundamentalist Christians do. They pick and choose through the Bible for concepts that suit their own purposes. How are they different?

I know it's hard to believe, but there are some rational Christian fundamentalists who aren't complete nutbags. The bible DOES condemn homosexuality

I'm fully aware that there are Christian fundamentalists who --like Osama Bin Laden-- twist religion into a horrible abomination used for evil purposes, but those clearly weren't the people I was talking about. Your language suggests that you recognize there are a portion of this group that's not insane either: they are the people I respect. The people who have strong faith and abide by the bible's teaching...ALL of the bibles teachings...are decent people.

What about being "deeply religious" merits respect?

I tend to respect people's beliefs because I'm a tolerant person. If I understand where you're coming from, then I'm less likely to label you as a racist or bigot. I understand some of thse fundamentalists, and some of the apathetic/braindead masses, and therefore don't ridicule them for their beliefs--telling someone they're full of shit isn't as effective as explaining why they're full of shit.