Are you for or against same sex marriage?

[marquis2]

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children because their lifestyle is not natural or healthy.
Let me make this clear: I have nothing against gay people, no problem at all, don't give a shit what they do. But you can't tell me they're normal or natural or any other such bullshit because they're not. They're wrong, plain and simple. They're not natural, they're fucked up, and as a result, in my opinion shouldn't be raising children.

Yes, we seem to have been brainwashed into believing that a same sex relationship is equally as valid as a M/F one.This is because political correctness believes that if you want something to be true then it is true. But life in its essentials is this. You are born, you reproduce and you die.That is how our species survives and why we have the necessary equipment for reproduction.Biology is sexist, we are biological units yet we try to pretend otherwise.
The problem with having two same sex parents is the lack of a role model.I never had to be told how to act because my father set an example .How I would have ended up with no father but two mothers or with two fathers I don't know.

 

[BlueBalls]

If homosexuals want to be just as unhappy as other married couples then i say let them have it, what harm does it do

 

[Member2019]

I don't think they should be allowed to adopt children because their lifestyle is not natural or healthy.
Let me make this clear: I have nothing against gay people, no problem at all, don't give a shit what they do.

Then let them adopt unwanted kids which are stuck in all sorts of far less desirable, and virtually love-free, situations.
Caring, love, responsibility knows know gender, knows no "natural law" (even though animals do engage in homosexuality), etc...

But you can't tell me they're normal or natural or any other such bullshit because they're not.

That very statement means you are judging them, so you do have something against two people of the same gender living together.

What if they aren't having sex?
What if they are just friends?
Don't think it happens?
It does.

They're wrong, plain and simple.
They're not natural, they're fucked up, and as a result, in my opinion shouldn't be raising children.

What about single mothers raising children? Single fathers?
What about all of the unhealthy marriages, people "living in sin" and countless other judgments?
Why are you singling out those living together of the same sex and not countless others?

Yes, we seem to have been brainwashed into believing that a same sex relationship is equally as valid as a M/F one.

I don't think many are arguing this, and some believe having a male and female guardian is the best contrast.
But with a majority of kids growing up without that, and countless other "situations" that are undesirable, what's wrong with two loving guardians of the same sex?

This is because political correctness believes that if you want something to be true then it is true.

No, our world is very much politically incorrect because most kids are growing with without what you say.

But life in its essentials is this.
You are born, you reproduce and you die.
That is how our species survives and why we have the necessary equipment for reproduction.

So "proper" loving and caring is related to the ability to reproduce?
Could you please explain all of the unwanted children out there? The unplanned pregnancies?

Get this, an adoption is planned, an adoption is wanted.
God forbid two responsible, caring, loving adults want to become guardians of such calculated motives.
I'm all for that!

Biology is sexist, we are biological units yet we try to pretend otherwise.

Animals still have homosexual relationships, adopt "partners" of the same sex, live an entire life without reproducing and aren't promiscuous.
Yes, it's far from the norm, but it happens.
When you have two people dedicated to each other, it's rather nice to see in my view, regardless of whether they are having sex, are of the same sex, etc...

The problem with having two same sex parents is the lack of a role model.

And a male and female guardian is a guarantee of that?
And what about single parents?
And single parents who gain assistance from the government?

I guess when all other arguments fail, my American Libertarian ideals rule.
My vote (and massive income tax) says the government should encourage two-adult households from a sheer fiscal standpoint.
It reduces the burden on the rest of society, increases responsibility, and sets the best example of guardianship.

I could give a rats what the two adult relationship is, it just needs to be responsible.
God knows the male-female relationship shows no guarantee of that, and is a great minority today.

I never had to be told how to act because my father set an example.
How I would have ended up with no father but two mothers or with two fathers I don't know.

What about one mother?

I cannot believe how many people focus on the male-female guardian combination as if it guaranteed.
It is not remotely guaranteed to be healthy, fruitful or otherwise, much less it is the continuing minority today.

The example of "judgment" we show our kids today is rather fucked up and unhealthy.
If people accepted the values of others, our kids would be far less confused and judgmental themselves.
They would be more focused on other things like bettering themselves than judging themselves against others.

No wonder the bar keeps dropping lower.
We want to point and blame others for it, but it's our own "relative superiority feeling" that is causing it.

 

[pathfinder]

Re: No adoption?

Because ... ???
With some many unwanted children, having two loving parents works very well compared to not merely just 1, but none!

Even Bill O'Reilly is for two parents of the same sex, because even he says it's better than one.

I'm of the school of thought that creating a larger pool of people to adopt isn't the solution.... high risk fucking is the problem. If you're not ready to have a kid then you shouldn't be going through the motions of making on unless you take EVERY precaution to avoid it. Stop making babies to be adopted. People are worse than puppy mills.

I for one think that the question isn't the amount of care a same sex couple can provide. I have no doubt they have a lot of love in their hearts, enough for one or more children. The problem is the climate the children would live in and the amount of ridicule, harassment, etc. that a child of a same sex couple would undoubtedly receive by their peers... particularly a male being raised by two males. That kid had better be taught at an early age to fight because he will no doubt be the target of much abuse.

 

[Manalishi]

If they want to be married then best wishes from me for the happy couples. But no adoption or insemination. For the simple reason it would provide some solid data for the old 'environment vs nature debate'. Would they become extinct or keep coming out of the closet?

 

[pathfinder]

If they want to be married then best wishes from me for the happy couples. But no adoption or insemination. For the simple reason it would provide some solid data for the old 'environment vs nature debate'. Would they become extinct or keep coming out of the closet?

Hell, when you put it that way... they have my support 100%. If this is one way to cut back on the population growth then by all means.

 

[McRocket]

I am not going to quote it; but a GREAT, great post there Prof Voluptuary (above #143). Top drawer, IMO.

 

[ludacris]

I can't say what the societal norm is. Even if I could, it would change again tomorrow, thus making my ascertation wrong. I basically mean, it is the norm for a child to be created through a man and a woman because any other arrangement is 99.9% unlikely (I once read about a guy getting pregnant and because I don't know all the details I won't say 100%). So, I guess one small part would relate to this fact.

I know that there are a lot of problems with hetero marriages. I'm not denying this. Homosexual marriages most probably suffer from many of the same problems as they are human conditions. But any problems that are not experiened in a homosexual marriage which are in a hetero marriage, will probably be replaced by problems that are exclusive to homosexual marriages. On top of that add on the fundamental fact that two men or two women cannot produce a child and you have the "icing on the cake" which could either lead to deviant behavior which otherwise would not have been present in the child, or may amplify any pre-existing deviant behaviors that could have been brought on by any number of factors relative to marriage problems.

I don't know anything for sure about homosexual lifestyles and also don't want to generalize. But I do want to say, relating to this, that children need stability in order to grow to their fullest extent cognitively and emotionally. *If* the majority of homosexual lifestyles do not provide stability, then that is another reason why I am against bringing a child into the marriage. I'm merely laying this thought on the table in case someone else wants to pick up on it. I can't speak with certainty, I don't feel like gathering facts and building a case, nor do I want to look evil. I just want to give my opinion.

If in ten years, it's generally known and accepted that gay couples make equal or superior parents to straight couples, I will not have a problem with children being raised in a gay household. But until it's proven, I cannot get past the fundamental flaw in the arrangement, and therefore think it is improper.

You're just grabbing these facts out of your arse. Do you have any evidence to prove your assertion that having homosexual parents will make you "deviant" in your words, or are you just labelling your ignorance as scientific debate. Not to mention that of all the deviants of the world, how many were actually raised by homosexuals. By all accounts Hitler had a pretty normal life, but he still killed millions of Jews.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I don't see a problem with same sex marriages. Who cares, you know? It's their private life and just because they're gay doesn't take away their rights to have a little privacy and freedom.

Hell, about 50% of marriages fail anyway, so why not let same sex couples take a shot at trying to improve the rate? :dunno:

 

[Lexx7]

I'm all for it!









....as long as both chicks are hot
J/K


but seriously, I don't mind. If anything I'm against marriage of any kind...

 

[hotlikecandy]

Fuck religion and politics, but same sex couples should not want to go against institutions though, they are not going to win. If they're happy and harmless to others then let them be together under the same roof and in the same bed doing the meatspin. Let them live their own lives. They don't care if you find it repulsive. But on the issue of having children, I say HELL NO. Why? Not because I believe that they can't be loving parents. Shit, they can be a Martha Stewart and Dr. Phil at home. They can be a Brady Bunch. But since my theology classes in college I have stuck to my belief that children will not grow up normal in a family like that not because of the parents but because of the society they will be brought up in. Society will kick down and spit on those children. If the parents really want to adopt, and they are well qualified to do so, I say move to Alaska or something. Or unless you're really rich and you can put your kid in an exclusive school and keep him/her at home (which isn't a normal childhood). But two gay guys or lesbians living together? No problem with that. By all means do whatever the hell you want to make yourselves happy. It's a short life.

 

[D-rock]

I always found denying people freedoms and equal rights on the basis of tradition or history or a strict dictionary definition of something to be pretty stupid myself. It's not very good reasoning.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Re: No adoption?

I for one think that the question isn't the amount of care a same sex couple can provide. I have no doubt they have a lot of love in their hearts, enough for one or more children. The problem is the climate the children would live in and the amount of ridicule, harassment, etc. that a child of a same sex couple would undoubtedly receive by their peers... particularly a male being raised by two males. That kid had better be taught at an early age to fight because he will no doubt be the target of much abuse.

Especially if society continues to adopt the archaic view that one's sexual orientation is of any consequence to how they should live all the other aspects of their life. Where one puts their penis or vagina should have no bearing on anything else in their life.

I've heard people say that if two gay men adopt a male child then that child, basing his choices on the experience of his parents, has a much greater chance to wind up gay himself. That is simply not true. If every child's sexual orientation mirrored that of their parents then there would never be any gay people in the first place, would there?

 

[McRocket]

Re: No adoption?

Especially if society continues to adopt the archaic view that one's sexual orientation is of any consequence to how they should live all the other aspects of their life. Where one puts their penis or vagina should have no bearing on anything else in their life.

I've heard people say that if two gay men adopt a male child then that child, basing his choices on the experience of his parents, has a much greater chance to wind up gay himself. That is simply not true. If every child's sexual orientation mirrored that of their parents then there would never be any gay people in the first place, would there?

A very good post, IMO.

However, I believe that not all gay people are gay from birth. What percentage are not? I do not know. But as a shot in the dark I would guess at least 10%. Possibly 20%. Possibly more. Though I don't think a whole lot more. Actress Anne Heche(sp?) is a well known example.
I have known people that claimed to be gay, but it turned out later they were 'only' bi. And I have known people who say they were gay for as long as they can remember.
Nothing wrong with either in the slightest, of course.

But as with MANY things in life. Things are often not black and white - but grey.

 

[Imagine]

I don't know about marriage. I'm not entirely sure what the origin of the term is, but I suspect that marriage in its current form has ties to the church. If so, I'll leave that for the church to decide, I'm neither a member or believer of any so it's not really any of my business how they define their own terms. So gay marriage, maybe. An equivalent legal status however, yeah, sure.

 

[Member2019]

You mean like blacks marrying whites and having kids?

But on the issue of having children, I say HELL NO. Why? Not because I believe that they can't be loving parents. Shit, they can be a Martha Stewart and Dr. Phil at home. They can be a Brady Bunch. But since my theology classes in college I have stuck to my belief that children will not grow up normal in a family like that not because of the parents but because of the society they will be brought up in. Society will kick down and spit on those children.

The same was said about black and white Americans marrying and having kids.
But how many generations did it take for that to change?

 

[pathfinder]

Re: No adoption?

If every child's sexual orientation mirrored that of their parents then there would never be any gay people in the first place, would there?

Immaculate conception? Chicken before the egg? Your logic makes way too much sense.

 

[hotlikecandy]

Re: You mean like blacks marrying whites and having kids?

The same was said about black and white Americans marrying and having kids.
But how many generations did it take for that to change?

I'm not an expert on that, coz I'm not from America, but I would say that that is equally "revolutionary" and deviant and I can see your point. But I guess my point is - why put children in such a situation? It's a bit of selfishness on the parents' part. As I mentioned in my previous post, society (the institutions and its members) are too judgmental, and will really eat you alive if you are in that situation. It's just not a good idea. Think about the poor kids. :2 cents:

 

[Elpajeroloco]

Against, i dont care if god likes or not, if the bible disaprove that, or if some moral-guardians morons are angered, but homosexual behavior isnt natural, as society we must tolerate but that dont mean to totally accept it, science -and common sense- tells is not natural, so nothing good could come from that, we should learn that some things should have some limits

 

[BlueBalls]

Yes but homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time it hasnt just sprung up over night, let them eat cake