Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

I'm waiting for akascream, too.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

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?

No one's saying they shouldn't condemn homosexuality. Well, ok, that's exactly what some people are saying, but no one really cares what fundies believe except other fundies. The problem is that they want state law to prohibit homosexual marriage and homosexual foster parents, and state law applies to everyone who lives in the state, including non-Christian and non-religious people. They want to ban something based on purely religious reasons reasons that cannot be demonstrated to have any validity. There's a name for societies that establish laws by claiming it's the will of God: Theocracy.

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.

LOL! The only reason comparing Christian fundies to Osama is ridiculous is because, hopefully, most of them wouldn't justify killing someone by saying it's God's will. But otherwise it's a valid comparison. Osama doesn't twist Islam any more than your average Christian twists the Bible. There are practically no moral stances that don't find some kind of support in a Bible verse or another. You just have to be imaginative enough.

I spend a few hours a week reading posts at www.christianforums.com, and there is no limit to the ways Christians find to make the Bible fit their morals. "Oh, this verse is a metaphor."
"Oh, you're obviously taking that verse out of context, look what this verse says! There are no contradictions in the Bible, so I must be right!"
"Oh, this verse says something completely different in the Hebrew version!"
"Oh, that's what I thought too a year ago, but I read on a site that Bible scholars have established that this is the correct way or interpreting this verse."
"Oh, but God is Good, so this verse must be interpreted this way."
"Oh, but God is Just, so this verse must be interpreted this way."
"Oh, but faith in God and Jesus is the most important thing, so this verse must be interpreted this way."

And it goes on and on and on... But you don't even need to take a look at those posts yourself. Just pick up any objective book on the history of Christianity, and look at the moral positions Christians have supported throughout history, all the while claiming that they were justified in their bigotry because "It says so in the Bible!".

... Not that any of this is relevant to this thread, because even if Christians had demonstrated that their interpretation of the Bible always remained consistant, they would have no business imposing their views on an entire state in a secular country like the USA.

 

[totoro'd]

I always envied this girl:

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

^^ GG sweeping generalizations GG
Just what we need more of around here.

 

[Virgin Wii]

Drinky always seems so intelligent when he's not talking about games. Something about Nintendo must turn him into ranting loon. My guess? Too much quality; to notice greatness, you must first be familiar with the mediocre. No bad Nintendo products thus results in the perception of anti-quality, where bad and good games do not exist. That's why it's so important to have a PS2 on hand at all times. I suggest a quick play of Xenosaga before tackling such games as Metroid Prime and F-Zero GX.

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.

Many times, the sexual preference of prospective parents is the deciding factor used by adoption agents to determine worthiness. That's the problem.

 

[nitewulf]

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.

also neglects the fact that it is societal expectations that are wrong. who will be the bullies? kids. why will they be bullies? because they have been told that homosexuality is wrong and it is ok to make fun of.
if the first few black students never walked into the first non-segregated schools in the south, then where would we be?
if rosa parks never made her stand, then where would we be?
somebody does have to take the first steps. it must start somewhere if societal views are expected to change.
if there are lots and lots of adopted kids who have gay parents, the situation wouldn't be odd anymore. and there would be no more bullying and ridicule.

 

[Virgin Wii]

also neglects the fact that it is societal expectations that are wrong. who will be the bullies? kids. why will they be bullies? because they have been told that homosexuality is wrong and it is ok to make fun of.
if the first few black students never walked into the first non-segregated schools in the south, then where would we be?
if rosa parks never made her stand, then where would we be?
somebody does have to take the first steps. it must start somewhere if societal views are expected to change.
if there are lots and lots of adopted kids who have gay parents, the situation wouldn't be odd anymore. and there would be no more bullying and ridicule.

This is a great argument to use against those people who want to get their kids circumcised because "I don't want him being made fun of in the locker room."

 

[PhlegmMaster]

^^ GG sweeping generalizations GG
Just what we need more of around here.

A generalization is the act of taking some characteristics of a particular sub-group and unjustifiably claiming they apply to the entire group. That's not what I'm doing at all. I said Christians, as a whole, interpret the Bible to make it fit their morals, and that's exactly what I meant.
The examples I mentioned weren't necessarily said by fundies, often they were used by liberal Christians, the tolerant kind who usually accept evolution, and in their case I say good for them, because I usually agree with their morals, but that doesn't change the fact that they interpret the Bible so it fits them. When a text is so complex and ambiguous as the Bible, there's no way everyone will agree on a single interpretation, so it's obvious that every interpretation is purely subjective, except for the parts that can be evaluated by seeing if they fit reality, like Genesis which obviously doesn't, but unfortunately most of the Bible isn't like that.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

A generalization is the act of taking some characteristics of a particular sub-group and unjustifiably claiming they apply to the entire group. That's not what I'm doing at all. I said Christians, as a whole, interpret the Bible to make it fit their morals, and that's exactly what I meant.
The examples I mentioned weren't necessarily said by fundies, often they were used by liberal Christians, the tolerant kind who usually accept evolution, and in their case I say good for them, because I usually agree with their morals, but that doesn't change the fact that they interpret the Bible so it fits them. When a text is so complex and ambiguous as the Bible, there's no way everyone will agree on a single interpretation, so it's obvious that every interpretation is purely subjective, except for the parts that can be evaluated by seeing if they fit reality, like Genesis which obviously doesn't, but unfortunately most of the Bible isn't like that.

I agree, but

No one's saying they shouldn't condemn homosexuality. Well, ok, that's exactly what some people are saying, but no one really cares what fundies believe except other fundies. The problem is that they want state law to prohibit homosexual marriage and homosexual foster parents, and state law applies to everyone who lives in the state, including non-Christian and non-religious people. They want to ban something based on purely religious reasons reasons that cannot be demonstrated to have any validity. There's a name for societies that establish laws by claiming it's the will of God: Theocracy.

This is what I was referring to.
Oh, and I do agree that religion has no place in making political decisions of this nature, but you already know that since you've read my other posts supporting same sex adoption.

 

[RiZ III]

Whether or not I was/am a religious person, I would oppose Gay adoption. Texas+1

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Whether or not I was/am a religious person, I would oppose Gay adoption. Texas+1

Care to explain?

 

[PhlegmMaster]

No one's saying they shouldn't condemn homosexuality. Well, ok, that's exactly what some people are saying, but no one really cares what fundies believe except other fundies. The problem is that they want state law to prohibit homosexual marriage and homosexual foster parents, and state law applies to everyone who lives in the state, including non-Christian and non-religious people. They want to ban something based on purely religious reasons reasons that cannot be demonstrated to have any validity. There's a name for societies that establish laws by claiming it's the will of God: Theocracy.

This is what I was referring to.

Well then, please explain to me how I made a generalization. Are you saying there are Christian fundamentalists in Texas that don't want to ban same sex adoption? Maybe there's 1... 2 if you count his dog, but I doubt there are more than that.

 

[Virgin Wii]

OpinionatedCyborg: Sony Fan

 

[ManDudeChild]

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.

They have the right to have a wrong view (even bigotted and a small view), but a fundemental problem that you're not factoring in is that it isn't just the product of another time and way of thinking. These people are passing some of these hate filled ways of thinking on to their children. I think that's even more dangerous, and ironic given the debate at hand, than just a few "old timers" that can't keep with the times, or something to that effect. It taints the future, and doesn't allow humanity to evolve socially. There is of course a point where you have to draw the line and say, "ok, there's some shit we can't be tolerant of." Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, these are things that shouldn't be tolerated ... but to try and curtail the rights of two responsible people whose only "crime" being homosexual and wanting to adopt a child? I'm sorry, but if that small way of thinking can be accepted, then a lot more things can be accepted. It's a slippery slope, and it seems some are already sliding down.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

OpinionatedCyborg: Sony Fan

My brain was built by Sony, which might explain some of my contradictory remarks in this thread, as well as PSP like ejaculation during sex. So yes, I am a Sony fan

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I'm sorry, but if that small way of thinking can be accepted, then a lot more things can be accepted. It's a slippery slope, and it seems some are already sliding down.

If you don't accept and respect alternative points of view, then you'll never have a chance to convince people with those views that they're wrong. We need to try and understand why people believe what they believe to attack the problem at its core. There are some fundamentalists who'll never be convinced otherwise, and we need to respect and understand exactly why they won't be convinced. Likewise, there are MANY people who can be taught the error of their ways through education, not insults and labels.

What do you propose we do with people who oppose gay rights (they would say they're for gay rights and against gay marriage, but we all know better than that)? Tell them they're idiots? Lambast them for failing to keep up with the times? Nothing positive comes out of name calling and hate. As soon as we stop listening and attempting to understand them, we become just as blind and narrow in our cause as they are.

 

[Canadian Psycho]

I wouldn't want to grow up with gay foster parents.

Who in their right mind would?

 

[Virgin Wii]

My brain was built by Sony, which might explain some of my contradictory remarks in this thread, as well as PSP like ejaculation during sex. So yes, I am a Sony fan

That's some hate right there. I'd tell you to suck my dick were it not for the fear of you ignoring my manhood entirely and giving everybody the impression that I'm a eunuch. Which I'm not.

What do you propose we do with people who oppose gay rights (they would say they're for gay rights and against gay marriage, but we all know better than that)? Tell them they're idiots? Lambast them for failing to keep up with the times? Nothing positive comes out of name calling and hate. As soon as we stop listening and attempting to understand them, we become just as blind and narrow in our cause as they are.

So you propose we try to understand the position of bigots? To tolerate intolerance, for the sake of not looking like hypocrites? That's a flaw in logic. The fundamental difference between us and them is that we promote the freedom to do whatever we want as long as no harm is done to others, while they want to enforce their beliefs and upbringing on everybody without regard for diversity or common sense. Their way is the only way, and any objection is percieved as a threat to their lifestyle. Their beliefs REQUIRE everyone to comply, you see. There have been societies run by governments that embraced that way of narrow-minded thinking with much enthusiasm, and it never goes well once the will of the people is gained.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Who in their right mind would?

Probably a kid that's been stuck in foster system and would just like to be part of a family. Just a thought.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

So you propose we try to understand the position of bigots?

Yes.

To tolerate intolerance, for the sake of not looking like hypocrites?

Understand where they're coming from so you can use that understanding to educate them without making them get defensive and deaf to your arguments.

That's a flaw in logic. The fundamental difference between us and them is that we promote the freedom to do whatever we want as long as no harm is done to others, while they want to enforce their beliefs and upbringing on everybody without regard for diversity or common sense.

Stop with the 'us and theme.' It's annoying when Limbaugh rants about 'liberals do this and conservatives do that' and this is no different.

You do realize that you're enforcing your beliefs on 'them' by restricting 'their' religious practices, right?

Again, what do you think we should do to solve this problem? It's easy to point at Texas and say "you're wrong," but how can you propogate a change in thinking? What makes you right and what makes them wrong? How can you prove to these people that you're right and they're wrong?

As long as everyone segregates themselves and clearly defines the lines of right and wrong, syntheses will rarely be reached. I'm not saying you have to agree with what you perceive to be bigoted behaviour, I'm just saying you must attempt to understand it, and tolerate their point of view before educating them on what you believe is right.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"You do realize that you're enforcing your beliefs on 'them' by restricting 'their' religious practices, right? "

Flawed argument and a poor analogy. No one's trying to restrict their religious practices. Unless, of course, their religious practices are "prevent all heathens from doing things that pose no threat to anyone, we just think it's icky."

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

"You do realize that you're enforcing your beliefs on 'them' by restricting 'their' religious practices, right? "

Flawed argument and a poor analogy. No one's trying to restrict their religious practices. Unless, of course, their religious practices are "prevent all heathens from doing things that pose no threat to anyone, we just think it's icky."

"No one's trying to restrict their religious practices...here's how we restrict their religious practices."

Any time you censor someone else because you disagree with them, you're enforcing your beliefs on them. So please don't say "no one's trying to restrict their religious practices," then go on to admit that you are.

 

[firex]

I always envied this girl:

I dunno. Paul Reiser as a dad would be really traumatizing, I think.

 

[maharg]

"No one's trying to restrict their religious practices...here's how we restrict their religious practices."

Any time you censor someone else because you disagree with them, you're enforcing your beliefs on them. So please don't say "no one's trying to restrict their religious practices," then go on to admit that you are.

The right to a faith is not the same as the right to impose faith-based law. Their religious practices are in no way impaired by a seperation of church and state. However, the 'religious practices' of atheists and non-christians ARE impaired by the imposition of christian law on them.

This is an absolutely indefensible position.

For that matter, preventative law is also retarded. Laws restricting freedom should not be imposed based on a fear of possible harm. That harm should have to be proven.

Anyone who is willing to allow either of these things to pass, even if it does not directly impact themselves, is as much as asking for it to happen to them.

 

[Drinky Crow]

The next retard to post "Texas +1" without stating WHY they believe Texas to be in the right gets banned.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Any time you censor someone else because you disagree with them, you're enforcing your beliefs on them. So please don't say "no one's trying to restrict their religious practices," then go on to admit that you are."

I don't think anyone's trying to say that at all. No one's trying to "censor" christianity. (or at least, that's not what I said)

 

[Virgin Wii]

Yes.



Understand where they're coming from so you can use that understanding to educate them without making them get defensive and deaf to your arguments.

If you haven't noticed, that isn't working. They can't be educated because their entire system of belief is based on blind faith, from which they will not waver. How do you argue against blind faith? You can point out the inconsistencies in their thinking, but that means nothing to them. God works in mysterious ways; a diehard conservative's beliefs are not supposed to be understood, for no one can comprehend the will of God.

How do you educate somebody who was taught their entire life not to trust their own senses and judgement?

Stop with the 'us and theme.' It's annoying when Limbaugh rants about 'liberals do this and conservatives do that' and this is no different.

You do realize that you're enforcing your beliefs on 'them' by restricting 'their' religious practices, right?

:lol

OK, this is just too rich. All I ask for is to not be persecuted for offending the religious sensibilities of right wing nuts, which I do simply by EXISTING, and I am the one restricting THEIR rights?

This is not about freedom of speech. That would be the case if they were simply talking shit about us, but they're not. They're trying to turn their church-derived beliefs INTO LAW. What about this can you not understand?

Again, what do you think we should do to solve this problem? It's easy to point at Texas and say "you're wrong," but how can you propogate a change in thinking? What makes you right and what makes them wrong? How can you prove to these people that you're right and they're wrong?

Let them die off like they are currently doing. Fight their propositions until their numbers dwindle to a point where they cannot affect our government. It will work itself out.

As long as everyone segregates themselves and clearly defines the lines of right and wrong, syntheses will rarely be reached. I'm not saying you have to agree with what you perceive to be bigoted behaviour, I'm just saying you must attempt to understand it, and tolerate their point of view before educating them on what you believe is right.

Our side is open to debate. Theirs is not. They have to be accepting of others before others are accepting of them.

 

[Mumbles]

The gay movement will never figure out that this is about the kids and not them. But I think the gay movement is pretty selfish all around, so this is no suprise.

The fact that the bill allows for children to be removed from "non-heterosexual households", regardless of the well-being or preference of the children, shows that this not the kids, and it's actually not about gay people either, but about the fact that some people (usually conservative christians) just can't stand gay people.

You do realize that you're enforcing your beliefs on 'them' by restricting 'their' religious practices, right?

No, if the were banned from going to church, or casting magic spells on their food, that would be restricting their religious practices. Not letting gay people adopt children has nothing to do with their practices, but only with codifying their bigotry into law.

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.

Honestly, I don't see how it follows. It really doesn't matter if you hate black people because your father raised you that way, because you think we're the descendants of Ham, or what. You're a racist. You want to yank kids out of homes solely because they're being raised by gay people? Then you're a bigot, and it doesn't matter whether you hold the opinion because "the bible says so", or because "being gay is against evolution". It's not that I don't understand their position, it's that I *do* understand it, and have labeled it appropriately.

I'm not at all sure why I should respect a position simply because some random group happens to hold it, either. It seems to me that rational discussion doesn't work against raw hatred, but sometimes shame and humiliation does. If they feel bad about being called "racist", "bigot" or whatever, then I'm happy, because that's exactly what I intended. Perhaps the words will cause them to take a good look at themselves and think about what they're doing.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

"Any time you censor someone else because you disagree with them, you're enforcing your beliefs on them. So please don't say "no one's trying to restrict their religious practices," then go on to admit that you are."

I don't think anyone's trying to say that at all. No one's trying to "censor" christianity. (or at least, that's not what I said)

We're just arguing semantics, and since we're pretty much in agreement with everything else on this issue, let's just drop it. I'm saying that by telling people they can't do something because you feel it is wrong, you're imposing your beliefs on them. I never said doing this is wrong becuase I believe quite the contrary: if no one ever said "this is the way we're going to do things" nothing would ever get done because we'd be stuck in a quagmire of indecision, trying to appease every party involved.

If you haven't noticed, that isn't working. They can't be educated because their entire system of belief is based on blind faith, from which they will not waver. How do you argue against blind faith? You can point out the inconsistencies in their thinking, but that means nothing to them. God works in mysterious ways; a diehard conservative's beliefs are not supposed to be understood, for no one can comprehend the will of God.

Those who oppose gay marriage/adoption aren't only the fundamentalists. I would argue the vast majority of Americans in opposition to gay rights can can be convinced otherwise through proper education. I've said elsewhere in this thread essentially what you're saying now: fundamentalists follow the bible as closely as possible (blind faith), which means pure logic is often useless.

This is not about freedom of speech. That would be the case if they were simply talking shit about us, but they're not. They're trying to turn their church-derived beliefs INTO LAW. What about this can you not understand?

I'm for secularism; what's your point? We're imposing our beliefs on them by allowing this to occur. As I said previously, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Censorship is a part of society--we judge what's good and bad, as a whole, and make decisions from there. I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

They have to be accepting of others before others are accepting of them.

If we're speaking specifically about the fundies, then this is expecting a bit much. Most believe homosexuality is a psychological problem or a conscious choice, both of which can be reversed.

Let them die off like they are currently doing. Fight their propositions until their numbers dwindle to a point where they cannot affect our government. It will work itself out. Our side is open to debate. Theirs is not.

And in the meantime, let's not sink to their level by forgetting their's two sides to the coin.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

I'm not at all sure why I should respect a position simply because some random group happens to hold it, either. It seems to me that rational discussion doesn't work against raw hatred, but sometimes shame and humiliation does. If they feel bad about being called "racist", "bigot" or whatever, then I'm happy, because that's exactly what I intended. Perhaps the words will cause them to take a good look at themselves and think about what they're doing.

But the thing is, those words don't work, and they only serve to lengthen the divide between the two parties.

Some of the idiot fundies, who like legitimate one's will never change in their religious stance, are the one's making the news, but we all know the average person opposed to gay rights is just that...average. These are the people who hate gays for a variety of lame reasons, and therefore are the one's that can be convinced otherwise through rational discussion of the facts.

Point out that homosexuality is prevalent in all species of mammals. Tell them that there is a rigorous process, created to weed out those with bad intentions, all applicants must go through before adopting a child. Remind them of a famous gay person they're fond of. Show them scientific studies linking homosexuality to genetics rather than choice.

Don't dismiss them as idiots (even if they are)--make a valid attempt to show them the right way so they can be a better person for it, and you can be a better person for not lowering yourself to their level.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Probably a kid that's been stuck in foster system and would just like to be part of a family. Just a thought.

...isn't this about the foster system, though? As in whether or not gays should be FOSTER parents, not ADOPTIVE parents.

 

[Virgin Wii]

Those who oppose gay marriage/adoption aren't only the fundamentalists. I would argue the vast majority of Americans in opposition to gay rights can can be convinced otherwise through proper education. I've said elsewhere in this thread essentially what you're saying now: fundamentalists follow the bible as closely as possible (blind faith), which means pure logic is often useless.

Non-fundamentalists who oppose gay marriage by and large hold those beliefs as purely personal. They're not the ones clamoring for the government to take action. They're not the ones threatening the rights of gays. They're secure enough to believe what they want to believe and not give a fuck about the non-consequential stuff the guy next door is doing.

I'm for secularism; what's your point? We're imposing our beliefs on them by allowing this to occur. As I said previously, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Censorship is a part of society--we judge what's good and bad, as a whole, and make decisions from there. I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm not following your first 3 sentences here. Moving on, though, I don't see your point about censorship in society. It exists, and has since the dawn of man. That doesn't mean the concept itself isn't flawed. Censorship is rooted in supressing the people more than anything else. Who determines what is censored? People of power. How do people attain power? By conforming to the beliefs of those that can give it to them. Censorship is fundamentally flawed as it restricts the masses from seeing what people of power do not want us to see. It assumes that their beliefs are right and puts a negative stigma on everything it touches. Our own bodies are considered offensive by even those who aren't fundamentalists, and censorship is to blame. Can the censors prove that seeing naked bodies adversely affects the youth? No. But it's censored anyway, because certain groups out there want us to feel insecure about ourselves, which in turn grants them much power. Don't be foolish enough to think that censorship is for our own good. It's all about people trying to change people, because they can't tolerate someone thinking differently from themselves. Intolerance is the root of all conflict in this world.

Point out that homosexuality is prevalent in all species of mammals. Tell them that there is a rigorous process, created to weed out those with bad intentions, all applicants must go through before adopting a child. Remind them of a famous gay person they're fond of. Show them scientific studies linking homosexuality to genetics rather than choice.

Don't dismiss them as idiots (even if they are)--make a valid attempt to show them the right way so they can be a better person for it, and you can be a better person for not lowering yourself to their level.

You said yourself that this doesn't work on the fundamentalists. The people who simply hate gays but aren't doing anything about it, which is the average gay hater, are not the people we're complaining about. We're all about the free will, remember? As long as they don't hurt us, they can believe whatever the fuck they want to.

 

[Brannon]

Texas -1

(drat, can't say that without giving a reason... okay here goes)

The way I see it, the state's preference for abstinence-only programs is going to backfire and they'll end up with a lot of children as wards of the state. Qualifying for foster parent status is (justifiably) grueling enough as it is; Texas can't or soon won't be able to afford to shoot itself in the foot by disqualifying a group of qualified parents because of their sexual preference. You think overcrowded classrooms are bad; how can a foster parent be most effective if attention is diverted to several extra children due to a lack of parents? Adam and Steve is the least of their problems.

(or I can shorten it and say...)

...it's TEXAS.

(yeah, that's the ticket!)

 

[Zaptruder]

I see the texans like to dance about their politics... 2 steps forward, 3 steps back...

 

[Macam]

The next retard to post "Texas +1" without stating WHY they believe Texas to be in the right gets banned.

Can you just ban Texas legislators instead? Some of us live here and would like the idiocy to stop.

 

[galeninjapan]

Har Har lets all make fun of Texans because they are teH baCkwards.

 

[BobbyRobby]

What I say is anecdotal, but I have a lesbian aunt, who artificially inceminated herself, and is now raising two kids with her same-sex partner. The kids are practically pefect so far. They are smart, nice, and healthy. I can't imagine them being raised any better.

I think a boy with two gay dads would have it pretty rough though, but that's still no reason to ban gay parenting.

And fucking pardon me for being so selfish as to not want to get fired from my job, denied housing or being jailed for loving someone of the same sex.

Just fucking try.

Sexual orientation is not a fucking fetish.

etc.

I wouldn't advise showing anger, or offense when arguing, especially when the one you're arguing against has shown none towards you. Its very boring, and makes you appear irrational, which isn't good since you have sound arguments to offer.

 

[Kobun Heat]

See, it's funny that you posted because I always thought of you as being the product of a same-sex union between bobbyconover and TekunoRobby.

 

[TekunoRobby]

See, it's funny that you posted because I always thought of you as being the product of a same-sex union between bobbyconover and TekunoRobby.

Some secrets are better kept hidden.

Our boy is growing up so quickly, he's posting with such vigor. Almost makes me sad to let him go but all men need to grow up some day, I'm sure bobbyconover will agree.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Some secrets are better kept hidden.

Our boy is growing up so quickly, he's posting with such vigor. Almost makes me sad to let him go but all men need to grow up some day, I'm sure bobbyconover will agree.

DAAAaaad, You're embarrassing me!

 

[norinrad21]

Oh we are almost there people, The United States Of Saudi-Isrelia.

 

[Rorschach]

oops

 

[Mandark]

akaScream, you have bad memes:

1) Homosexuality is not natural.

Animals in over 450 species have been documented engaging in homosexual behavior. Humans have been doing this sort of thing for a very long time. I'm not sure what definition of "natural" you're using.

1a) Homosexuality is not a favorable evolutionary trait, therefor it can not be natural.

This particular argument relies on a poor understanding of evolution, in which everything is determined by a 2x2 Mendel chart, and any unfavorable traits are quickly weeded out.

Evolution does not prevent unfavorable traits from arising, nor can every trait be reduced to such a simple genetic mechanism. There are unfavorable traits that arise repeatedly because they are genetically linked to another, favorable trait (sickle cell anemia, for example), and traits that result from unforced genetic drift.

2) Political opposition to adoption by gay couples is unrelated to anti-homosexual bigotry.

Let's all take a look at last year's Republican party platform for the state in question, shall we?

The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to breakdown of the family unit, and leads to spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God...

The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

3) Gay adoption damages the children.

My boy Mercury Fred slam dunks this one.

4) Homosexuals are being selfish by wanting to adopt.

So the ideal parent is one who doesn't want kids?


OpinionatedCyborg: As I understand it, the Biblical case for anti-homosexuality is very weak, especially considering the most poplar quote(s?) comes from Leviticus, right in the middle of all sorts of things 99%+ of modern Christians see fit to ignore. I'm entirely fuzzy about this, though.

So do people deserve respect for the religious beliefs even when it comes from a misreading of the text, or so selective a reading as to be disingenuous?

BobbyRobby: I'd prefer a respectful, rational discourse, but I consider widespread oppression and stigmatization a teensy bit more gauche than name-calling.

Kobun Heat: Good catch. This isn't even about adoption by gay couples. Apparently even temporary exposure is enough to traumatize a child. Say, what's your take on all this?

Spike Spiegel: You too. For it or agin' it?

Loki: Did you ever explain your position on homosexuality?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

OpinionatedCyborg: As I understand it, the Biblical case for anti-homosexuality is very weak, especially considering the most poplar quote(s?) comes from Leviticus, right in the middle of all sorts of things 99%+ of modern Christians see fit to ignore. I'm entirely fuzzy about this, though.

Weird. I come back a few hours later, just as this thread's starting up again. Oh well, it's convenient right before I head off to bed.

Mandark, you would be correct in your statement that the Biblical case for anti-homosexuality is fairly weak. However, my original point wasn't to free all fundamentalists/wackoes/retards from scorn, only to say that there are some that aren't completely crazy idiots who jump on the bandwagon and push forward anti-gay legislation. Arguments following that point were mainly semantical as I agreed almost completely with what they were saying.

So do people deserve respect for the religious beliefs even when it comes from a misreading of the text, or so selective a reading as to be disingenuous?

The people you single out in your sentence do not deserve respect because the intention to deceive others, to further one's own warped views, is apparent. I came to the defense of some religious fundamentalists because I believe some religious fundamentalists are not disingenuous in their interpretation of the bible. To us, they are close minded, but to them, we are the one's with our minds closed. I have had the pleasure to meet many people who fall into the rational category of religious fundamentalists, and I have to say, they are good people. They have chosen to follow God's word as closely as possible, and spread God's word as best they possible can. It is unfortunate that they chose to limit their potential by shutting themselves to ideas outside the bible, but I still respect the decisions they've made with their lives.

So I guess the answer is no and yes. People who distort the bible, or pick and choose what they want to believe, for alterior motives, do not deserve respect. Those that are earnest in their religious persuits are worthy of our respect.

What I wrote's really convultued, but I'm tired as hell after running around in a hot ninja suit while smoking cigars. Time for bed!

 

[RiZ III]

Why? Cause it isn't fair to the kid. Thats why. He/she shouldn't be forced to live with the 'freaks' of society. Like it or not, Homosexuality is seen as a stain upon humanity by most societies including this one. Perhaps one day when homosexuality is just a norm, it would be fine for gay adoptions, but until then, I don't think its right or fair for the kid. If you people want to have a homosexual life, thats fine, just keep it to yourselves and don't get orphans involved in it. Go produce your own children if you can.

My best friend in 7,8th grade had a lesbian mother. She was married before, had him, got divorced soon after and lived with her lover. Once word got around school, he had a horrible time and that wasn't the first school where that had happened either. It wasn't fair for him, but atleast it was his own mother who gave birth to him. He wasn't picked up by selfish strangers who didn't care about the kids future as he grew up in such a split society. I might sound hard headed, fundamental, conservative, and whatever else, so call me what you want and roll your eyes if you will, but I just don't agree with a kid being forced to grow up probably being ridiculed and made fun of because he/she was forcefully adopted by gay parents.

 

[Kobun Heat]

If the bill is really written in the way that the first post goes, then I really don't like it. Restricting the definition of marriage is one thing, but saying that they're going to ask potential foster parents to disclose their sexual orientation, then do raids on homes to find out if there is any gay going on, seems like a ridiculous abuse of power.

Obviously, we want to keep track of foster parents. Remember, it's an occupation -- they are paid to take care of the kids while they're "in the system". They might have been removed from bad homes, etc. So there needs to be continuous oversight to make sure that the foster parent is fit. But simply being gay doesn't mean you're not fit to be a foster parent. I think that's absurd.

 

[ChrisReid]

There are non abusive non gay people.

No, there are not enough. It's ridiculous to turn away willing and able foster parents.

All you people saying it isn't fair to the kid are stupid. It's not like we're ripping people from loving stable homes and sticking them with a couple of gay guys. These are kids who are in a screwed up place who need good temporary care wherever they can get it, and there are not enough people in any state who can provide it.

 

[StorablePrawn]

Don't you people realize this is just the same oppressive shit that has already happened with other minority groups in the past?

Don't you chuckle and nod in shame when you think that women weren't able to vote?

That African-Americans were denied the same, along with a mass of other basic rights?

This is the same moronic shit we've been trying to push away for the entirety of the existence of our nation. We're either going to sway so far towards the right that we'll all lose our civil rights (but be able to conceal handguns and blow each other's brains out), or, hopefully, Americans 100 years from now will look back, chuckle at our bigotry, and nod in shame.

Let.

People.

Live.

Like.

People.

Isn't that what this country was supposed to be for? To be free, unoppressed? What is so damaging about homosexuality, outside of the fundamentalists idiots who turn up their cheeks at half of what the Bible has to say in the first place? (And what about Jesus, with his messages of love and acceptance? Maybe I've read into the New Testament too literally? I'm not a Christian, but I've read the Bible for the sake of cultural literacy. Maybe the organized religion part is where all of this especially convoluted shit comes from.)

I wish I could be more of a patriot, but it's shit like this that makes it so difficult. I want to love my country, but it is so hard to find the things worth loving.







I'm going to use the word "shit" at least 600 more times in this thread.






Also: Fuck you, Lindsey.

 

[Pimpwerx]

This is so funny. If you were a foster kid, I bet you'd take gay parents. It's not like anyone can apply and get a kid. There are extensive bg checks, and the financial committment is big. That some homophobes would want to deny some kids a home b/c they are insecure in their sexuality is pretty damn funny IMO. I'd much rather the fools put their ignorance on display for the world to see than keep it on the low.

A friend of mine was born naturally by his mom and dad. But his dad "turned gay" later on in life and his parents got seperated. He talks to both and visits both and gets along with both. He didn't catch "the gay", and is one of the coolest, most open-minded people I know. You can be born to gay parents just as you can be adopted by them. I don't know why any large state would want to keep the burden of crowded orphanages, but whatever. Texas is still the most ass-backwards state in the union. Maybe we can pawn them off to Mexico in exchange for rights to Cancun. At least we'd get something worthwhile in return. PEACE.

 

[levious]

Why? Cause it isn't fair to the kid. Thats why. He/she shouldn't be forced to live with the 'freaks' of society. Like it or not, Homosexuality is seen as a stain upon humanity by most societies including this one. Perhaps one day when homosexuality is just a norm, it would be fine for gay adoptions, but until then, I don't think its right or fair for the kid. If you people want to have a homosexual life, thats fine, just keep it to yourselves and don't get orphans involved in it. Go produce your own children if you can.

My best friend in 7,8th grade had a lesbian mother. She was married before, had him, got divorced soon after and lived with her lover. Once word got around school, he had a horrible time and that wasn't the first school where that had happened either. It wasn't fair for him, but atleast it was his own mother who gave birth to him. He wasn't picked up by selfish strangers who didn't care about the kids future as he grew up in such a split society. I might sound hard headed, fundamental, conservative, and whatever else, so call me what you want and roll your eyes if you will, but I just don't agree with a kid being forced to grow up probably being ridiculed and made fun of because he/she was forcefully adopted by gay parents.

Yes, because parents should always consider the potential reaction of a child's peers when planning out their lives.