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.
I'm 1000% positive the child can't turn out the same as WITH normal, heterosexual parents. Are you a psychiatrist and know this for sure?
And yes, i know it's happening...
I'm not saying the child will become gay. it's all about natural models and roles. The child WILL be different.
The child will likely be more tolerant of people different than himself, and that's a good thing. Children are raised by all sorts of people. single mothers, single fathers, drug addicts, abusers, and some are raised in homes or foster care. A good loving set of parents of any orientation can be an improvement over many situations. Many high functioning happy humans were raised by gay parents, there have been studies of adults raised in these families and no correlation with personal problems were found.
No matter how much people want it, homosexuals can not marry because they can not produce (in any way, shape, or form) a blood line. Calling it "marriage" would be an attempt to change the meaning of the word and thats plain idiocy.
My gracious, this is bizarre.
Are you saying that if someone cannot or chooses not to procreate, then they are not married?
If I adopt, it is not carrying on a blood line.
A marriage is simply a union of two people based in contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrod2828
Why should we promote a disease? Again, I'm not anti-gay. My cousin is gay and we get along great. Homosexuality is something not normal. We can all agree that every species is on this planet with the goal to produce offspring. Gays can not produce offspring. I'm not comparing being gay to being a pyro or other illnesses but in a way they are the same. It is a disease that people are born with. It's sad and I feel very sorry for them. Again, everyone has the right to pursue happiness. I just think we shouldn't promote something that isn't natural. Pyros have a mental illness. They can't help it. Doctors believe they have a chemical imbalance. Does that mean society should let them burn homes so they can pursue happiness? Again, I'm not comparing gay adoption to burning houses. I'm sure many gay couples would be excellent couples. I'm just saying that being gay is a disease that does not allow the human species to produce offspring. We should allow it and embrace it but we shouldn't promote it.
Wow, what bigotry. You leave me speechless.
Being gay is not a disease. Ignorance, bigotry and hatefulness should be eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrod2828
I'm not saying Gays produce negative consequences like Pyros do. I'm saying both are diseases. Both are not normal. I think we can all agree on that. We should not promote any disease. We should try to allow everyone on this planet to have the freedom to pursue happiness but we have to think about the common good as well. Only a man and a woman can create a child. There is a reason for that. It is bigger than you and I to discuss. To promote a deviation from nature just isn't right.
The medical community does NOT agree with you. Homosexuality is not a disease.
So, in my case, I was sterilized in my early 20s, as was my then husband.
You are, in essence, calling me a deviant.
Are you sure you want to call those who either cannot or choose not to reproduce deviants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiksi
I'm 1000% positive the child can't turn out the same as WITH normal, heterosexual parents. Are you a psychiatrist and know this for sure?
And yes, i know it's happening...
I'm not saying the child will become gay. it's all about natural models and roles. The child WILL be different.
The child will be different, they'll be accepting of other people.
Jesus had nothing to say about enuchs and he had nothing to say about homosexuality. Many people try to stretch his comment n the book of Luke in Chapter 17 when Jesus discusses the second coming with his disciples. Jesus claims, "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." I've seen many a preacher try to stretch parable to say that Jesus was addressing homosexuality, but ask them why, if the two men in the bed were homosexuals, was one raptured and the other left behind? They've got no answer for that one.
Marriage was not invented by Christians. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but marriages were occuring long before the advent of Christianity--thus marriage is simply a convention in which two people engage in order to formalize a loving relationship, or in some cases, a business arrangement. It is NOT a "seal of approval" from your sky daddy.
Lastly, I'll thank you not to speak for all of "Society" of which I am a part. I know many people and I'm happy to say that none of them espouse the narrow-minded fundamentalist view you are promoting in this post.
Listen i'm not trying to bash or slam you i'm just being true to myself I'm living in the greater San Francisco Bay Area...the utopia of all Homosexuals , and homosexuals have acheived "Equality" and theirs "Civil Rights" here at least so how in the world i'm i being narrow minded. And by the way any state that allow Homosexuals "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Unions" shouldn't even consider the Homosexual Marriage question. But that very question is before the California Supreme Court in San Fancisco at this very moment.
I'm a christian minister so you don't know what you are talking about , when you say that JESUS didn't say anything about "Eunuchs" Please read the post that (I ) was responding to so you can follow what I'm talking about.
GOD created "Marriage" for the first two human beings a male and a female named "ADAM" and "EVE" and the Majority of the Leadership of All Known Religious Bodies take your pick are against the idea of "Homosexual Marriage" no need to home in on "Christianity" per say i'm just trying to be real.
The "Over Whemling Majority Of American" are against Homosexual Marriage and if the (DOMA) is over turned and more states pass Homosexual Marriage Laws besides Massachusette...You will see a National Constitutional Amendment that will make marriage only between a "Man And A Woman" Legal. And if you sit down with your friends and be "Honest" with each other , you will know that what I'm saying is the absolute truth , you know that the Vast Majority of American are against homosexual marriage.
When someone disagrees with you, you either say they're putting words in your mouth or not thinking about the issue logically. That makes debate virtually impossible.
I have little or no stake in this, as I'm not especially interested in marrying anyone. There's no point in assuming anyone else you're debating with is, either.
If you think the historical implications are that significant, there's probably quite a bit you're overlooking. I can't say that I think much of arranged marriages, but evidently that did and still do take place. It seems like many aspects of marriage have changed over time. I'm not sure why, exactly, you think it's unreasonable to change the definition again. History is to be learned from--I won't argue with that (though many, many people fail to learn from it) but I really don't understand why that means that the historical definition of marriage must be upheld.
When we discuss, all we have in terms of a common ground in debate is the aspects to which can not be "adjusted" or "changed". If we discuss in an evolving manner to which nothing has any "truth" or "validity" then yes, you are correct, there is no point in discussion because the subjective realm is an infinite one and reserved for the irrelevant, idiots and the insane.
We have to mark a ground where meanings hold an exact truth or there will be no understanding between anyone. For every truth you find in one, another will surely test that truth with another perception. It is the idiocy of the relativistic mindset.
So, when you comment on something I say, do not attempt to "interpret" it based on what "you" perceive it to mean, but rather the context and the actually meaning to which it is referred to and known. What it means "to me" and "to you" is left to subjective debates when we discuss our favorite colors or tastes in ice cream. It has no place in these debates.
So you are correct, I will hold you to the exact context to which I am speaking. Not "my perception", but that which is a well known definition of the issue. When you see me refer to something, you will have the luxury of being able to look up its exact meaning and not having to guess my "personal" implications of its use. If you are "unclear" on my meaning, often you will find that clarification within the furtherance of my response in order to place it in the context to which I am speaking.
I do not speak in riddles, or make wide accusations that have no founding and are left to those who divine their truth from a crystal ball or that of a pipe. Everything I say and reason is based on a well documented system of communication to which can be referenced and identified by many books to which this process is attributed to. I can only hope that this is still the case as if it is not, our greatest opponent is not of the "believed fears" to which the sheepish masses prescribe, but rather to the master of ignorance that drives a very harsh result in its society of spawned fools.
Definitions are all we have. They are the life line for the sane, the tangible source for those who wish to communicate reason. Ever changing definitions are those of the uneducated, the fools, and the lazy. Language while changing should never stress itself to conform to the idiots of society. Especially when that change can be achieved through levels of logically reasoned bounds.
I explained what those bounds are, even hinted that they would be a direction to which success could be sure and quick without conflict. One must ask themselves if a person does not take the route which will achieve them the greatest benefit of their claim, what other result is it that they seek? There must be an ulterior motive when the door lies before them and must simply be walked through. What reason would a person have to avoid the door and leap through the barred window? Why? Why is there a need to push for this alternate route?
As a person of reason, and one who has looked at the complaints and the claims to which is offered by this group. I am confounded by the direction they take. Every claim to which they hold to can be achieved by other means. Yet why do they insist on this route? Why must reality change to meet their needs? Why can not a rational approach be made to serve their needs?
I can make assumptions, but those would be guesses. The fact remains that there is an easier road to their needs, yet it is avoided, and in some cases outright ignored to serve another. What "other" need is that?
There will be no Constitutional amendment. No one favors that route outside of the most hardcore fundamentalists, and vast majority? no. A slim majority, and the younger generation doesn't care.
Take your theocratic values and go to Saudi Arabia with them.
My gracious, this is bizarre.
Are you saying that if someone cannot or chooses not to procreate, then they are not married?
If I adopt, it is not carrying on a blood line.
A marriage is simply a union of two people based in contract.
No, where did you ever get that idea? Where did in all of what I said claim that bloodlines meant that? Have you been paying attention?
Read exactly what you quoted again. Look up what the definition of a blood line is. Explain to me how homosexuals can produce one between the two.
Read it again, think, and reason. Don't interpret by your subjective standards. What do the words I wrote mean by their actually definitions. If you are still confused after that, let me know and I will make great attempts to explain it to you.
There will be no Constitutional amendment. No one favors that route outside of the most hardcore fundamentalists, and vast majority? no. A slim majority, and the younger generation doesn't care.
Take your theocratic values and go to Saudi Arabia with them.
Yes, because subjective uses of the language is the way to go. I can say up, and it can mean down. Left can mean right, and intelligent can mean stupid. What a wonderful world relativism lives in. /boggle
This isn't the Constitution of the United States we are talking about, words do change meanings strictly speaking over time.
So what?
Really what this boils down to is people here or a majority are going, I think it's sick, God doesn't like it and we need to hold onto our (so called) Christian nation heritage otherwise God will destroy us.
Yeah, well--show me the scientific studies which show that polygamy is hardwired into the brain before birth as homosexuality is and you might have a point.
And why only give multiple wives to men? Where are the mulitiple husbands for women? Men are the only consenting adults which should be allowed to have state sanctioned multiple sex partners?
I think you'll need to come up with a better analogy than that one.
BTW, if polygamy is what a person chooses for themselves, whether they choose to have multiple partners, or choose to be one of several multiple partners, as long as no one is hurt, I don't have a problem with it. However, I believe that the laws are written in order to protect those spouses who don't wish to be one of five, which is why society requires a divorce before marrying again.
Your arguments are off base there are many "Polygamy" Marriage in the western states of Neveda , Utah , Arizona , New Mexico , California which are all illegal under United State of America Laws.
Polygamy is "HARD WIRED INTO MEN AND WOMEN BRAINS" and not "Momogamy" i'm shocked that you don't know about the "Thousands " of studies on this subject.From the onset of boy like girl and girl likes boys we have to sacrafice ourself to be faithful to just one sexual partner be it in a Marriage or any other committed relationship don't you agree.
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.
Listen i'm not trying to bash or slam you i'm just being true to myself
