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.
Broadbill, you are starting to self-destruct. Not a single thing you have asked have I not answered or addressed. The bottom line is that you are going to persist in the underlying belief that anyone who opposes your position is being unreasonable, hateful, intolerant, unfair, etc. I can handle opposition, just not the intolerance of those who seem to always honk and blow about how tolerant they are.
You accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. When in fact, I don't know how much fairer I can be in trying to see both sides.
Quote:
...and how many scientific studies need to be published to ease your troubled mind....10?, 100?, 1000?....at what point are you going to be convinced? Hint: You won't be...as you already mentioned above you are going to believe what you want to believe.
At least do us all the favor and admit that no study is going to sway your mind....its tiring watching you try and keep up this facade that you've actually put some thought into this and made some sort of decision by yourself.
Translation: I am posting some things, and writing in a fair-minded style, which you find infuriating because you can't counter them. Or taking my own summations and pretending you came up with them first.
Anyway, the exchange between us is becoming funny, and getting boring. I am perfectly content to let it be judged by others as to who is the more reasonable and definitive. I thought for a brief time you might be one of those who can actually discuss/debate in a manner becoming of mature adults. I am sorry to say I was wrong...
Um yeah....lets not confuse this group with The American ACADEMY of Pediatricians....interesting how they picked a name so closely resembling them, no?
I work as a licensed master social worker, working with families in need. This includes kids who are being adopted or who have been adopted, or adults doing the adopting. In-home, intense family therapy.
I could tell you a few things about the way kids are used as pawns and chits, in order to advance social experimentation and political correctness ("we must let gays be treated the same as other parents or we're being mean").
I could tell you what it does to kids to be used in that way, and how shameful it is. I've seen it up close and personal, and tried to repair the damage. (Oh, and I AM a professional, of course......and I ALWAYS put aside my personal feelings and work like hell to help WHOEVER is sitting across the table from me, gay or straight. People are people FIRST).
You may be objective in your work, and I hope it is so, but you sound very angry in your post. I have no doubt that in your work you have seen terrible things, the point I was trying to make in my post was that in straight-couple adoption there are various reasons for choosing the adoption route too, not all altruistic. People are people, why would gay adoption be any different. BUT, for the most part people who go through the drawn out process and expense of adoption do so because they really want a child for all the right reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888
We don't give a damn about kids in this country. We DO, however, care a great deal about gays and gay rights. Go figure that one out, if you can.
We are a shameless society.
Or we wouldn't do what we do.
These are two separate issues. You are right in that children's issues are not as much of a priority as they should be. As I have devoted my entire adult life to the welfare of children, I am painfully aware of that. That still does not mean we have any right to treat gay couples as second-class citizens. Just because we personally prioritize one group of people as being in need of stewardship does not mean we treat all others like carp. I get angry when any group of people are marginalized or persecuted, and I would have thought a Social Worker would feel that way too, but I guess I am wrong.
If you say so. I guess I got tired to googling all of your fringe, pro-traditional marriage organizations that are fronts as legitimate scientific organizations.
I agree is is getting boring.
Last edited by broadbill; 11-10-2009 at 10:13 AM..
Reason: to add that I'm bored out of my gourd!
So your argument is that since heterosexuals came up with the idea of marriage, that nobody else can have it now? You sound like a 3-year-old who doesn't want to share their blocks with another toddler.
Well it's easy for YOU to say that. I tell you what: I would ask you to think of something vitally important to you (personally), as well as to your family, community, etc. And even better if it was vitally important to your parents, ancestors, etc. too.
Now, "give" it to me. I want to do something with it. Never mind what. Suffice to say, you won't be getting back anything even CLOSE to what you gave me. That's okay, though............right?
You see, your dismissive answer is probably hypocrisy.
You seem categorically unable to picture yourself in other people's shoes. It's far easier for you to just hit the "template" button: YES on 1 voters were just being mean. Must be nice to live in such a simple world.
I guess TexasReb is for the social experiment called divorce. Divorce is the most common problem with heterosexual marriage. I am assuming that most straight people have forgotten that divorce was not acceptable to most people or the churches, and that was only 40 to 50 years ago. It was also common for the man to get the divorce due to marriage infidelity. A "straight white male" was assumed to have a reason for cheating on his wife; lack of sex i.e. from her, cheating on her part. A woman did not have many rights in a marriage because she was still considered a husbands property. A man had the right to open his wife's bank accounts and clear them out. A woman had to get her husbands permission to withdraw from their joint account and if she opened one of her own or had her own and tried to cash out on it, the husband was informed of her actions. In my opinion, the stereotypical white heterosexual male chauvinistic pig has had all the privileges against women, other races and gay people for way too long.
Here is my post, TexasReb, where you make an accusation of my calling you a male chauvinist pig, if you read what I said, it says " In my opinion, the stereotypical white heterosexual male chauvinistic pig has had all the privileges against women, other races and gay people for way too long". It never refers of you. Ask any woman over the age of 50 and even those of today and they may very likely agree with me that the white male in the USA has had all the advantages and perks at the cost of everyone else.
Well it's easy for YOU to say that. I tell you what: I would ask you to think of something vitally important to you (personally), as well as to your family, community, etc. And even better if it was vitally important to your parents, ancestors, etc. too.
Now, "give" it to me. I want to do something with it. Never mind what. Suffice to say, you won't be getting back anything even CLOSE to what you gave me. That's okay, though............right?
You see, your dismissive answer is probably hypocrisy.
You seem categorically unable to picture yourself in other people's shoes. It's far easier for you to just hit the "template" button: YES on 1 voters were just being mean. Must be nice to live in such a simple world.
Actually, my marriage is vitally important to me...and you can have it too! Please, do with it what you want..its your marriage. It doesn't in any way detract from my marriage...Its still vitally important to me. Likewise, allowing gay couples to marry does not to detract from it either.
I guess I'm really not understanding how allowing gay marriage is going to take anything away from existing marriage. If you are in a great marriage, then would you not want others who love one another to be able to experience the same? How is that going to take away from what you have?
Again, TexasReb, I did not call you or reference you as a male chauvinist pig, Did I? I said that many of the problems in the US are from them. I do not see why this is so difficult for you to see.
Perhaps it is because I see what I see. Here is your direct quote:
You did not quote me correctly. I said that many problems are from and have been from male chauvinist pigs, I did make a reference to you being one.
LOL Now, if you meant DIDN'T make a reference, then say so. Otherwise, the reading is obvious.
Quote:
You insulted me when you said I was ranting, when I was doing no such thing. I will not let you put words in my mouth. I believe it is you that is overly sensitive.
You put them in your own mouth, did you not? So far as my saying you were ranting? Yes, in my opinion, it was. I wasn't calling you names or anything, just commenting on your posts as I saw them...especially when it came to the part about being against "equal rights". Usually, such a summation of the sort is ranting. It was nothing personal though.
Believe me, I am farrrrrr from overly sensitive. LOL To be honest, people who take my stances are called every name in the book (especially by the so-called tolerant bunch) and I find it more amusing than anything.
Quote:
At least we agree on one thing, divorce is way too easy, thus making marriage also too easy to get into and out of. Marriage should be difficult to acquire and more difficult to dissolve, that would do away with Brittany Spears weddings.
Yes, sounds like we pretty much agree on lots of this.
Quote:
How would you like to have government declare you incapable of getting married? How would you like it if the majority had the right to prevent you from marrying the one you love.
It isn't quite so simple as government declaring it. It is just that most in this country believe the institution of marriage should be between a man and woman. This is reflected by government, but that is the way it is with most institutions and laws in the country.
Quote:
If anything, it is the church that needs to stop getting involved in politics and the lives of those not in the church. There is a proper place for religion and religious teaching and that is in the church.
Remember, one can choose a religious or civil ceremony. The two choices are not necessarily any more synonymous with a pro-or anti gay-marriage stance than democrat or republican are with liberal and conservative. It really comes down to how a society wants to define marriage, and obviously, we disagree on that one!
Quote:
I re read my post that you refer too, I owe you an apology. I meant that I did not refer. If you go back to where I first mentioned male chauvinist pigs, it did not make a reference to you. Again, I apologize.
Sorry, I wrote my opening reply before I read this one of yours. And you are correct. In the first post, you made no direct reference to me. In the next one, you did...as least the way it was written. BUT...it was obviously a typo so we can chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Also, to say, I meant no personal insult with the "rant" commentary. It is obvious from your latter posts that you are very capable of articulating your thoughts and writing in a civil and reasonable man. I respect and appreciate that...even if we vehemently disagree on the main topic...
Anyway, agree with them or not -- the bolded statement at the end of these excerpts -- as to the main point above that studies (at least at this point in time, as it is all a relatively new phenomenon) have to be taken with a grain of salt -- seems very fair and unbiased.
You're assuming that NARTH's opinion should be considered equally as valid as the opinion from the American Psychological Association. I strongly disagree with that assumption. Not all opinions are equal.
NARTH is an organization whose purpose is to spread the idea that homosexuals can be "converted" to heterosexuals. It's a practice with such a high failure rate that it's rejected by anyone who adheres to scientific principles and facts.
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.
