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.
well these laws were already deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court. Also since i was born in america, no matter WHAT state you live in NO STATE has the right to make laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. if they did then we wouldn't be an actual nation.. YOUR STATE would be a nation, the United states would have split up and the constitutional discarded
Thats part of the problem of the Supreme court. I don't recall the constitution restricting states from restricting sexual practices. It isn't mentioned in the constitution, at all, thus its a power delegated to the states.
But thats not how we use our system.
At any rate, I agree with you, I am not going to be restricted. Trust me, if a blue law effects me, I just ignore it or work around it.
The infant/toddler needs a balance of nature provided by a male and female. And a pair of the same sex does not provided it, anymore than a single person of straight persuasion does.
I don't have to stretch the imagination. YOU do. As it is, whether straight or gay, single people should not be allowed to adopt a baby/small child. The infant/toddler needs a balance of nature provided by a male and female. And a pair of the same sex does not provided it, anymore than a single person of straight persuasion does.
If you don't see/accept this, then we will ever be talking past each other. An infant/toddler/even minor child should not be the chips for a social experiement. They need that balance that nature provided (call it God or nature) of man and woman. The most obvious rationale is that both sexes are needed to reproduce at all. The rest follows from that simple biological fact. Do you honestly think that two women can provide an adolecent boy with all he needs to grow up and prepare him for male life? Or that two men can be what is needed for a young girl experiencing her first period? And those are just obvious examples of -- as DeToqueville said in another context -- of how absolutely presposterious it is for (humans) to presume the wisdom to meddle in the works of nature!
In other words, single mothers and fathers should be forced to surrender their children? To adoption agencies? A church? The street? The government? An orphanage?
My friend's wife died in a car accident - does he have to give up his very young daughter? After all, your logic is that both, male and female are needed to provide balance and properly raise children. Obviously, the female half of the dyad is missing. What, oh What is he going to do once his daughter gets her period? Better get rid of her before he screws her up by lacking the ability to cope with this experience.
I really should have listened to my own advise sometime a while back to not get involved in any more of the "Gay Rights" threads. They are predictable as sunrise as to who will be here and how the hysterics will usually go. It is not even worth replying to and I am not going to spend much more time on it.
For some of the regular activists on here, nothing short of total embracing of equality in terms of marriage and child-rearing will work. Of course, the reason for the hysterics is obvious. Somewhere, deep inside, they know different. That is what is the intolerable aspect for them.
It doesn't make how many times that I (or anyone else) repeat how we believe gay people should have the same Bills of Rights rights as anybody (which they do), or deplore deliberate persecution and have a track record of standing up against it... it will ALWAYS come back to nothing short of total acceptance that it is totally normal will be enough. Again, this is the reason for the hysterics and the silly name calling like "bigot/homophobe/etc.
Too damn bad. I am not intimidated by it. Homosexual relations -- much less, child raising -- are not on par with that of heterosexual. No amount of propoganda and or PC censorship is going to change it. As are no amount of extreme examples of an abusive heterosexual couple stacked up against some loving homosexual couple going to do the trick. There are exceptions to every general rule. But it doesn't negate the essential underlying truth.
But bottom line is, never once did nature say one thing and wisdom another. I am just going to end it with this passage...from a gay man, I might add:
Who explains to the young daughters when they reach an age how to deal with their growing breasts, their periods, boyz sniffing around them demanding blow jobs, how you stay chaste, how to deal with the meanness of other little girls, what PMS feels like and how to deal with it, the expectations of motherhood, what to expect with a baby in your belly, how you feel with various kinds of birth control, how other women feel and what is going on almost every day of your uniquely female life? Huh? How is it two men think they have what it takes to raise a female child, or two women think they have a clue about the pressures of being a boy and dealing with the pressures of testosterone, male bonding, etc. Oh yes, it’s so very
politically incorrect to dare suggest that a child is entitled to parents
of both sexes, but in point of fact, THAT IS HOW NATURE INTENDED human
children are raised. Sorry, I know it is a hanging offense to suggest in
this oversensitive age that child raising and homosexuality might have even
the slightest hint of a problem, but then of course who gives a **** about
children when we’re talking about OUR RIGHTS?
In other words, single mothers and fathers should be forced to surrender their children? To adoption agencies? A church? The street? The government? An orphanage?
My friend's wife died in a car accident - does he have to give up his very young daughter? After all, your logic is that both, male and female are needed to provide balance and properly raise children. Obviously, the female half of the dyad is missing. What, oh What is he going to do once his daughter gets her period? Better get rid of her before he screws her up by lacking the ability to cope with this experience.
Please explain!
Last post of mine...but I had to address this ridiculous point.
Good gawd. Grow up. Who said anything about gay parents, who are already parents by a coupling of male/female which produced the children in the only way nature permits it to happen...to "give up" their children. Who ever you are? One of my very good hunting/fishing buddy friends was a gay man. We would give each other hell all the time. He was a parent and he was a good one by a normal earlier marriage. I had no problem at all with the guy watching my kids sometime. But even he said it is just not right for two gay couples to adopt/artificially concieve and raise a baby from the outset and the said innocent baby/toddler never know anything BUT a man/man or woman/woman raising. It is a travesty and abomination if this is ever allowed to happen.
So does that answer your self-righteous, breast-beating question?
Like I say, you need to grow up a bit and stop believing your own press notices and learn how to carry on a real discussion without all the exageration and hyperbole and emotive nonsense.
Now then? Carry on. I think I will call it a night!
Are you actually surprised at the yes crowd? The nasty anti-gay brigade who joins every gay thread to say what disgusting abominations they are. Or as I like to call the extremely anti-gay crowd, CCCA (Conservative Closet Cases of America).
I always get a kick out of people who say they're for gay rights but think calling a straight person gay is an insult.
Obviously, you cannot mean me - I didn't mention homosexuals or equal rights!
I simply asked you how your rationale worked out with single parents? You said that there needed to be a balance by having both, female and male parents to properly raise a child and cope with potential issue during adolescence.
Single parents quite obviously fail to meet your requirements. Thus, I am wondering what they (or the state/fed. gov.) are to do with their offspring now that they are ill equipped to raise (mentally?) balanced children.
Hey, it's your argument, not mine - I am just curious how you make sense of the argument you have made.
Hell, as long as that is not all that hits my ass on the way out, we can agree, reckon? G'night!
I love how we are labeled the "perverts" yet this is another example of the against-gay-straights turning something that has nothing to do with sex (the old saying) into a sexual comment. I'm guessing many folks who are so against the gays think about gay sex more then gay people do.....
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.
