Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not reading all the posts but probably already discussed. If gay people boycott Chick Filet are they also boycotting gasoline? The Saudi's view homosexuality punishable by death so no chicken and no gas? We just have to keep living. There are alot of places I shop at for convenience but don't agree with their philosophy. I just don't see the need unless I am boycotting 100+ businesses and I do need gas so that won't change any time soon. To me if I gave up chick Filet then I need to give up gas or my message is useless.
Not reading all the posts but probably already discussed. If gay people boycott Chick Filet are they also boycotting gasoline? The Saudi's view homosexuality punishable by death so no chicken and no gas? We just have to keep living. There are alot of places I shop at for convenience but don't agree with their philosophy. I just don't see the need unless I am boycotting 100+ businesses and I do need gas so that won't change any time soon. To me if I gave up chick Filet then I need to give up gas or my message is useless.
Sometimes you just gotta pick your battles. As you say, it's impossible to boycott EVERY business that you might disagree with, but I always give a preference to those that most satisfy my belief system. CFA is an easier target because it is something that is optional that you most certainly could do without.
Define "short time". It's been legal in some parts of the U.S and Canada since before 2000. That's over twelve years, long enough to draw conclusive data on any harm found more likely in families headed by homosexual parents. Still the vast majority of evidence finds no difference in cognitive, emotional, psychological, social, or sexual development. Exactly how long would you have us wait?
At least until we know how good children from same-sex union do in life, whether they are able to have a relationship with the opposite sex and how well they do raising they own children.
For thousands of years humanity was raising children in teams of male/female with both male/female psychology affecting emotional and intellectual development of children.
How will being raised by two males or two females in a emotional and sexual relationship affect the children it is hard to predict and we do not have enough empirical data to make any informed judgements on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Question for you though: Do you think it's possible that our breaking tradition by giving women equal rights opened the door to interracial marriage, which opened the door to gay marriage? I see that as just as good a slippery slope theory as any.
I can't see a connection here. Interracial marriage was already legal in most of the world. As a matter of fact American ban on interracial marriage was kind of annomaly in the Western world.
How will being raised by two males or two females in a emotional and sexual relationship affect the children it is hard to predict and we do not have enough empirical data to make any informed judgements on the subject.
Of course we do; you just refuse to accept it. But since you say there isn't enough data to make an informed judgement call, would you not also agree that there isn't enough data to justify the discrimination in the first place? I mean, aren't you essentially admitting that people are opposed to gay marriage and adoption just because?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnA151
B/S I didnt get married in a church my marriage was legal and authorized by the local govt who issued the license . no man in the sky was needed
we have been happy for 30 years ....
marriage is a man made law saying its god ordained dont make it so
Well said. I find the whole would-be case against gay marriage and adoption very peculiar. Not only do these people have the audacity to comment on the rightness/wrongness of a truly trivial matter such as homosexuality. But they actually think it's justified to keep people from even being allowed to marry and adopt. Meanwhile, studies have come out to suggest that homosexuals are not only every bit as good at making each of these work; but sometimes they are better.
And when asked to provide evidence for their claims to the contrary, you typically get either nothing or a single study/website, oftentimes with an apparent bias.
Of course we do; you just refuse to accept it. But since you say there isn't enough data to make an informed judgement call, would you not also agree that there isn't enough data to justify the discrimination in the first place? I mean, aren't you essentially admitting that people are opposed to gay marriage and adoption just because?
There is not enough data on how children raised in same-sex families fare in life when time comes to their emotional development and ability to form relationships and raise their own chidlren. It's too much of a risk to allow gays raising children while we do not even understand what causes homosexulaity in the first place...
There is not enough data on how children raised in same-sex families fare in life when time comes to their emotional development and ability to form relationships and raise their own chidlren. It's too much of a risk to allow gays raising children while we do not even understand what causes homosexulaity in the first place...
We don't even understand what causes heterosexuality for that matter. So far, it would appear there's no more objective reason to assume there's "risk" in letting gays adopt than there is in letting heteros adopt. No reason to discriminate against homosexuals.
Do you agree with "innocent until proven guilty"? If so, why do you not also believe in "harmless until proven harmful"? Anyone can create risks in their mind about any given thing or behavior. I could say that some brand new sneakers you bought at the store might turn you into a raging alcoholic (If a tie-in is needed, let's say that subconscious discomfort caused by them could drive you to drinking). Should you have to wait 50 years to wear them, since you couldn't possibly prove to me that they won't?
Last edited by Vic 2.0; 08-09-2012 at 08:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time for a new thread. On gay adoption, maybe? 
