Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Fluffz]

1st sentence: You are wrong, and now since they are gay they can't be in a relationship? Are you shitting me? That is a human being you're talking about and just because they were born that way you don't want them to be in a relationship? Wow....just wow.

2nd sentence: Yet you tell them they cannot fulfill their desires and wishes by engaging in a relationship?

3rd Sentence: Why not? They are two people most likely in love. I understand that they have no potential to produce children, but most go through the surrogate mother program or the adoption system. So once more, why not? They are simply two people in love, and you want to perpetuate a double standard on them? You are just fucking ridiculous.

1st: Of course they can? Is my English really that bad? Where did i say gays should not be in a relationship?
2nd: Again, they have every right to do so
3rd: Because its not the same thing. If you would have read my previous posts you would have heard about tax breaks. For example its not fair to give the same tax break to a mother that had to be pregnant for nine months and to the pair that adopts a child. It just isnt.

[Nycle]

I could care fuck less if it's genetic or not. Even if homosexuality is a choice, it's a rational choice made by a large enough group of people that it can't be disregarded any longer. Gays are perfectly capable of raising families and deserve the same economic, social and professional status as other HAPPY couples. Guys like Izor and Wark would see that addition to our culture as a negative. That's one point that we disagree on.

I'm glad you think that way, because whatever the cause is, it shouldn't even really matter. Every human, including gay ones, is a part of society and should be treated as such, not as an outcast.

Unfortunately, the very fact that people hold different views on its origins and hotly debate their stands will inevitably cause some people to hold delusional images. I care for the socially weak and excluded, and I know that as long as people will think irrationally and proclaim that homosexuality is somehow a conscious choice, or even worse, something God "forced upon you", this will provide a larger playing field for some people in society to treat these people unjustly. From that point of view, I do think it's important to talk about the possible cause(s). I'm an incurable optimist though, and as we socially and culturally evolve to evermore rational levels, eventually I think the irrational (religious, etc.) side will succumb to the rational (scientific, etc.) one, which will hopefully lead to a more cohesive and socially inclusive society, of which I have no doubt will be of the benefit for all.

[Izor]

My reasons and also warks if you go back and look at our posts is to more or less protect our younger generation from having to deal with this shit. Gay/lesbian couples have no right adopting kids. I cannot fathom what my life would be like now if I had grown up with 2 fathers. Everything that was taught to me at home would be far different, whether it be conscious of the parents or not. I'd go through school knowing that my situation at home was not normal, and when I hit my teenage years I probably wouldnt want to be around the house as much as possible. The other kids would eat me alive, because that is the nature of children. Hell, even their parents would hate me and that would make it even worse for the kids getting encouragement from their homes. I could go on and on but thats too much effort and typing.

Of course, I'm sure the response is that 'society should be more accepting of these people' and/or 'if the children were properly educated they wouldnt think that way' so i dont know why I bothered typing that much.

[froedrick]

homo

[PH]

sup fro dick

[froedrick]

Nothin rockin the fro, you?

[TagMor]

And why is the religious side being brought into this? Has anyone heard of separation of church and state?

well then the state should stay the fuck out of Marital issues and leave it to the church/es.

An interesting little tidbit:
In the story of Noah, God created the great floods because the Egyptians were worshiping idols and being Sexually Perverse.. God saves Noah and then when the clouds part and the sun returns, He gives the rainbow as a sign of his promise to never eradicate a whole lot of people ever again... What is the international sign of homosexuals?.. The Rainbow.. It's an insult to God and anyone who values the Old Testament.

[Stompa]

I support gay marriage just to piss off people who have a problem with homosexuality.

[MirrorriM]

In other news, my boss loves talking to his patients about the upcoming election and the various propositions. He has an enlightening idea about why people are gay:

"Gay men are just guys who are afraid of women. They dont know how to be with women and are intimidated by them, so instead of trying to learn more about women, they choose to be gay. It makes it easier for them."

He also believes that the Garden of Eden was Hell, since "Adam and Eve did nothing all day but eat and dance. It was boring! Eve told Adam to bite the apple because she knew they needed more to life. Without ever knowing what sad or unhappy was, they had no reason to strive for something better, to be challenged, to be productive with their lives. Biting the apple allowed them to understand why they should be fulfilled by more productive lives. Not being productive equals damnation."

Hmm, but if we never knew about bad things in the world and did not see temptations to live a "better" life, could we even be bored? Would we need to feel that we are productive?

[JD MoFo]

I cant be bothered reading what everyone has said.

but to be honest.. Gay people should not be married or acknowledged in any way for defying nature.

[Pandagirl!]

Because its not the same thing. If you would have read my previous posts you would have heard about tax breaks. For example its not fair to give the same tax break to a mother that had to be pregnant for nine months and to the pair that adopts a child. It just isnt.

I'm not sure your argument can really be based on fairness here. In most cases, the woman is trying to get pregnant because they want to have a family. Yea, they have to carry around a baby for nine months before they can have the baby, but it's something that they'd put up with because they wanted to have their own baby. Now I've never adopted a child nor had a baby, but I would imagine that a bond between a biological child and a mother would be a lot stronger than that of one between a mother and adopted child, at least initially. The point I'm trying to make is that a woman gets pregnant to have her own baby and being pregnant is part of the process. She knows it's not going to be the easiest thing ever, but it's something she accepts in order to have the joy of a new baby at the end.

Also, it takes different types of people to adopt a baby than it does to have one biologically. I know a couple, man and woman, who adopted a baby because she just didn't want to have one. Is that wrong? Should the couple not receive the tax breaks because instead of having her own baby she rescued one out of an orphanage that was completely trashy and not a safe environment for a baby? Why would it be any different if it's a gay couple?

I know that this is kind of off on a tangent from gay marriage, but I still feel that overall equality in every aspect of life must be given to all people, gay or straight, before the topic of gay marriage can ever be rationally discussed.

[Epinephrine]

Yes i do. Getting children is also - should also - be a financial question. You need to give rich people a reason to get poorer, as romantic as love is its not as romantic as the yearly 5* Bali vacation. Its one of my major political concerns that social infrastructure for children needs more money.

You completely ignored my point. First of all, poor people have more kids than rich people, that's a fact. In fact the poorest countries in the world have the highest birth rates. Second of all, the places in the world with the lowest birth rates, also happen to be the places in the world least likely to accept gay marriage. In effect, there's no real link between money and birth rate, or acceptance of gay marriage and the birth rate. Therefore your entire argument is a moot point, it's a pointless argument which is not based on any fact.

In fact the reason why money is so important is that richer people are less willing to sacrifice anything to have children no matter their sexual orientation. Tax breaks for getting married do not in any way say, 'this is money for you to have kids', and obviously for richer people (who have less kids than anyone else) those tax breaks are not used to have more kids. Therefore, those tax breaks for getting married are not useful in stimulating people to have kids, but likely give them money to do any other number of things. So whether the tax break goes to a heterosexual or homosexual couple it makes no real difference in the end.

But the only way a gay couple can have a child is by adoption (a situation where something has gone wrong in the first place) so this argument works just fine. A couple that can not have children is not the same as a couple that can have children. Jet you want to throw them under a single law.
What about a man-woman couple that cant get kids due to a medical problem? Well it would not be fair to discriminate people because of how they were born. Again, unless you call being gay a disease i dont see why equal rights are a good thing. Being gay is a choice like getting successful or criminal. The choice is your right, but requesting the same law as someone who makes the other choice is silly.
This conformity of marriage (bound to the devaluation that comes for man-woman couples) is a problem for me. The equalisation of unequal individuals results in a weakening of society. Its not called acceptance when you turn nonconformity into a colourless middle way, not only in this case but in general.

(I liked how you specifically say that discriminating people for how they are born is wrong, and then preemptively counter that with saying the only way gay people can be born that way is if it were a disease, as if say... having brown hair vs black hair isn't part of 'how you are born' and nothing to do with a 'disease')

Your entire argument was that it's not fair for a woman who has to get pregnant (because it takes 9 months and they have to take time off work) to get the same tax advantages as couple who adopts. Now you backtrack from your own argument and say that it's okay for infertile couples to adopt. Obviously by coming up with something completely different, you have realized that the original argument, that the entire 9 months thing even makes ANY difference at all is a pointless argument and NOT an argument against gay marriage. Well good to know that even you thought your argument was stupid...

Oh wait you only conceded your argument when you replied to me because you knew that I completely negated your argument, but then you bring it up again in a subsequent post replying to Summa:

3rd: Because its not the same thing. If you would have read my previous posts you would have heard about tax breaks. For example its not fair to give the same tax break to a mother that had to be pregnant for nine months and to the pair that adopts a child. It just isnt.

It boggles my mind how you can so easily change your stance back and forth with no real consistency.

Right here you are torpedoing the traditional family when you complained about birth rates just a few lines earlier. I have been lucky enough to grow up in a such an environment, i think protecting this social structure is worth more effort. And giving a cheque to a single just like to a family is definitely not going to do that. Furthermore i am pretty sure this kid would profit more from a family than from this cheque.

We support families in Canada and support having kids in Canada by giving them money for each kid a family has. The more money, the more kids. Unlike the tax breaks that getting married may confer to you (which may or may not be used to have kids, as many heterosexual couples will CHOOSE not to have kids or only have 1 kid and thus reap the rewards of the tax breaks without ever having lots of kids which put people who get pregnant at a 'disadvantage'), these cheques have a very, very specific target and are VERY specific in encouraging people to have more kids, because well... the more kids the more money.

[Liquid Blue]

"Gay men are just guys who are afraid of women. They dont know how to be with women and are intimidated by them, so instead of trying to learn more about women, they choose to be gay. It makes it easier for them."

That's just retarded. I'd never want to be near some guys dick just because a woman would intimidate me. That shit doesn't even make sense, dick is gross. I support homosexuals and believe they should have equal rights, but I don't and won't ever understand how girls and gay guys like dick. Shit's disgusting. Guys are hairy too, overall we're pretty gross and smell like beer and shit. Whatever, I just had to say that.

but to be honest.. Gay people should not be married or acknowledged in any way for defying nature.

It's been stated repeatedly that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom as well, so how is homosexuality in humans defying nature?


In terms of adoption and pregnancy, I just want to add in that although the mother has to take care of the baby for nine months (not discrediting it), adopted parents can easily wait up to a year or more before being given a child. During that entire waiting period, they're constantly scrutinized and they're lives and records and home, even; are dissected and looked at with a magnifying glass and fine-tooth comb.They desperately want to take care of a child just as much as the pregnant couple does, and are under a large amount of stress, just as the pregnant couple is. And I'm sure most if not all adpoted mothers love their kids as if they gave birth to them, the amount of love in alot of adopted families is extraordinary.

[Galleleo]

I like how the only response fluffz had to my post was that I read a newspaper.

[Ekko]

hmm

Find me a husband that plays continuum.