Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
Since gays can get married and divorced, why don't we hear from the celebs after a gay divorce?
|
Well I guess the obvious answer is that the reason people were vocal about the marriage was because they were trying to attain that right and they did not have it. The reason they are not vocal about their divorce is because it was a right they had, and there was no reason to fight for it?
I am not sure I am seeing what is so mysterious about this, or have I somehow missed the force of your question?
And this is before mentioning that this is not magically related to the homosexual community. People IN GENERAL tend to be louder and more forthcoming in relation to their marriages, than they are about their subsequent divorces. This is not some specifically homosexual phenomena we are seeing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
IMO a marriage is between a man and a woman and otherwise we should get a different word for it but IMO they can have the same rights.
|
Then thankfully the chasm of difference between opinion and reality could not be clearer. You can have your OPINION about what a word means (in this case marriage) but no amount of opinion changes what the word actually means. And there is currently no reason on offer (certainly not from you) to think marriage is, or even should be, between one man and one woman.
Nor, other than assertion, are you offering any reason why we "should" have a separate word for it. I see no utility in that, no gain, and no motivation of value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
I am not against gay marriage but I get the irks when I think about two gay men adopting a young baby or a child. I mean, where is the child's consent to go against (in most cases) a natural need for a mother and a father, and instead being put with two men
|
It is interesting you focus SOLELY on two men doing so and entirely leave out two women doing so. This screams "bias" of some sort, though whatever that bias actually consists of I suppose we can only guess.
The "natural need" of which you speak however is manufactured. I do not see any reason on offer to think it actually exists. Outside from the obvious requirements of biological reproduction, I have seen no basis at all to assume children need one each of a male and female guardian in order to have an "ideal" upbringing.
Quite the contrary in fact. Reality screams back at you with countless examples to falsify your assertion. There are children of single parents who grow up every bit as well as children of "traditional" heterosexual couples (THC). There are children being brought up by homosexual couples of both gender types that grow up every bit as well as those of THCs.
And in fact some studies show they fare BETTER in some respects. Though I openly admit I think one of the factors skewing the results of such studies is that the average % of Homosexual couples who WANT their children is naturally higher than the average % in THCs. Why? Because homosexual couples actually have to go to effort and jump through hoops to become parents. Whereas in the world of THCs it can happen by chance or accident, unplanned and unwanted. And THOSE THCs likely skew the results and I have not yet seen studies normalize for it.
But even admitting that caveat those studies do exist and show that sometimes they fare better. But suffice to say that my point is carried not by them faring better but showing the generally fare every bit as well.
So I genuinely do not see anything at all.... not just little but anything at all.... supporting the common "children need some ideal of a mother and a father" narrative that many perpetuate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
I knew a gay male couple who adopted a baby boy. He was born prematurely to a crackhead mom, and they sat up for nights while he screamed through withdrawal. Later they found he had learning disabilities, and they worked with him the best they could. He is loved and cared for.
|
Indeed and one comment I have read often related to homosexuals adopting is that they generally DO take a higher % of the "problem cases" than the heterosexual community do. Heterosexuals adopting tend to go towards a certain demography, a certain health level, and a certain age. And children outsides these norms tend to be harder to place. But the homosexual adopting community tend to be more open to accepting them.
And this is a great thing but one that tends to be ignored by those pushing the "one man one woman" narrative and agenda.
Children need PARENTING. The quantity, sexuality and genders of the people providing it is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackercruster
Homosexual marriage is not marriage. But Obama legitimized homosexual marriage as normal as apple pie. So this is the legacy he left us.
|
It would be a nonsense to blame a single person for that. It is happening around the world. And often not just because some small cartel of politicians legitimized it. In my home country of Ireland for example it was put to the people in a constitutional referendum and it won by a landslide. So no this is not the legacy of a single man, it is the legacy of a generation. Deal with it.
Further you not calling it marriage does not mean it is not marriage. Your linguistic assertion is similar to those whining with that nonsense "Not my president" slogan. You can stamp your feet and refuse to call a spade a spade, but it will continue being a spade regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackercruster
Bottom line is: if your a homosexual you have mental confusion / illness, as it is not natures way.
|
Assertions without substantiation are just that: Assertions. There is no medical or psychology science at all on offer to suggest homosexuality to be an illness of any kind, let alone a mental one. And "appeals to nature" do not help your case because much, if not most, of what we do as human beings is not "natures way". But alas people with a bias against homosexuality only tend to appeal to nature when it suits them, but with hold the same move when it does not.
Your link however does not appear to work and returns "DNS" errors. If you find a link that works, I would be more than happy to consider the evidence you wish to present. However I am not convinces a "Manifesto" is a source of evidence, so much as a display of agenda? Do you have any ACTUAL evidence to cite perhaps?
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.
