NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...

The Brave New Gay Marriage World

A fictional look at what might be possible in a not-too-distant future.

By Bob Lepine

The date is sometime in the next few years...

"Mommy, do you think when I'm older, I'll be a lesbian?"
Claire Neale almost dropped the cookie sheet she was drying. There had been nothing about her evening with her 7-year-old daughter Corey that had prepared her for such a matter-of-fact question. Corey sat at the kitchen table, copying a list of spelling words. She didn't seem perplexed or troubled-only curious.

Claire put the cookie sheet in the cupboard above the oven and sat down next to Corey. She took a deep breath, smiled and said, "That's an interesting question, honey. Why do you ask?"

Corey kept on copying as she responded. "We were talking about all the different kinds of families there are in class today, and our teacher
said that some girls grow up and marry girls, and some boys marry boys. And some people don't get married at all. They become...I forget what she called them...something partners."

"Domestic partners," Claire said, wondering how this classroom conversation had been guided by Corey's teacher.

"Yeah, that's it" Corey said. "That's what Miss McMillan said that she and her boyfriend are."

Claire was amazed at how unfazed Corey was by this conversation. They could have just as easily have been talking about addition or the parts of a
flower. Claire's mind spun as she thought about how to interact with her daughter about what makes a family a family.

"I think I'll probably get married when I'm bigger. Do you think so,Mommy?"

Claire smiled. "I hope so, honey. If that's what God wants for your life."

Corey stopped writing and looked up at her mother with a big smile. "I wonder if I'll marry Amanda. That would be so fun! We would have the best
time."

As Claire sat speechless, Corey dropped her pencil and left the table. "I'm going to go call her right now!"

Claire was stunned. She thought back to the night a year ago when Corey wanted to ask Justin, the boy from across the street, to spend the night.
Claire had simply explained that boys and girls don't spend the night together unless they are married. What would Corey be thinking about the next time she wanted Amanda to come spend the night?

Later that night, Claire sat propped up by two pillows in bed, reading a novel and wondering to herself if she was missing important plot elements. She realized that she had just finished a page and a half and had no recall
of anything she had read. Her mind had been on her conversation with Corey. She thought about the other kids in Corey's classroom. At age seven,
most of the children were still innocent when it came to sexuality-or they
should be.

They knew that different children came from different kinds offamilies. Corey knew that Amanda had a mom and a stepfather, and that Amanda went to see her real dad every other weekend. She knew that her friend Libby lived
with her grandparents. And Corey knew that Uncle David, Claire's brother, lived with his friend Michael. They weren't "married," and Corey wasn't old enough to have any questions about David's sexual orientation. Claire and Jack had made
the decision years ago that, although they didn't agree with David's lifestyle choices, their children would know him as their uncle, and would know his partners as his "special friends" or his "roommate." That had talked about what they would say to the kids if David ever decided to marry, and figured they would cross that bridge when they came to it.

Was it time for Claire to have "the talk" with Corey? It seemed too soon, but given the conversations that were taking place in school, Claire wondered if she could wait. Just how much was she going to have to explain to Corey?
How much could a young girl understand?

And just how, Claire wondered, do you explain the biblical perspective of marriage and family to your daughter in a culture where that
perspective has become the minority opinion-where everyone Claire was teaching Corey to respect, from the teacher to the policeman to government officials,seemed to agree that same sex marriages and domestic partnerships were no better
and no worse than traditional marriage.

Would Corey wonder about her sexual orientation when she was 13? Or 17? Would she experiment? And would she grow up, as so many young girls used to
grow up, dreaming of her wedding day? Or would she grow up in a world where marriage had become old fashioned?

The bedside phone rang and Claire looked at the clock. 10:45 p.m. It was 7:45 on the West Coast, where Jack was on business.
"Hello."
"Hey honey. You still awake?"
"Barely. Are you just finishing the meeting?"
"Just getting ready for dinner. People eat late out here. The meeting ended an hour ago, but Doug had us stay around to debrief. Now we're supposed to meet for dinner in 15 minutes. And my body is still on East Coast time." Jack sounded tired. Claire wondered if she should mention her
conversation with Corey, or save it until her husband was back home.
"Did the meetings go well?"
"We'll see. It looks like we're either going to have to let some people go, reduce benefits for all staff, or figure something else out." Jack
sighed. "And it's not the insurance company's fault. Claims are up significantly now that the companies have to include coverage for domestic partners. You put the higher premiums together with the Social Security benefits increases,
and you begin to understand why we're in a recession."

Here it was again. Claire thought back to 2004, the year when Massachusetts made same sex marriage into a civil right, and the whole country had found itself debating the issue. Back then, the TV news had been filled with
stories of longtime homosexual couples who said they wanted the same things everyone wants-a home, children to raise, a life together. "We're not hurting anyone," they said. "Just give us the same rights everyone else has."

A few years later the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that tied same sex marriage to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution, and now the ripples from that decision were being felt in every home in America.

Claire thought back to something she had heard a pastor say on the radio back when the debate was raging. "Imagine you're on a large boat hoping to
get to the other side of Lake Michigan when one man insists he has a right to drill a hole through the bottom of his side of the boat. When you object, he argues that you are intolerant. He says you can just stay on your side of the
boat with your friends-what he does on his side of the boat has no bearing on what you do on your side. But when the boat sinks, everyone is in danger of drowning."

Claire and Jack said their goodbyes and hung up. Claire was exhausted, but she decided to turn on the news before she turned out the light.
The lead story was about a debate over a proposed tax increase that was being debated in Congress to prop up the Social Security system.

Her mind drifted again. Was there something she could have done or should have done differently, back when the issue was still up for debate? She
hadn't wanted to appear harsh or unloving, especially since her own brother
was homosexual. Anytime the news showed people who were opposed to same sex marriage, they appeared to be angry, hateful people. She had thought about calling or writing her congressman, but she had wondered at the time if another phone call from a constituent really made any difference.

"In other news," the TV anchor said, "a showdown is coming between the state attorney general and a local church, over the churches alleged
discrimination for refusing to rent the historic downtown landmark to gay couples who
want to be married there..."

What do you guys think of this?

Yay. Another gay-marriage thread. :rolleyes:

I get the feeling that the person who wrote that would find the things he wrote about bad.

I think they'd be marvellous. :)

Yay. Another gay-marriage thread. :rolleyes:

They're always a boatload of fun! :fluffle:

.. it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...

What do you guys think of this?Neither interesting or new. It's fearmongering plain and simple.

Huh? Long pointless story?

It is irritating that the pespectives of the two sides in the issue of Gay marriage is woefully biased in favour of the pro gay marriage lobby. People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots. It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.

I think it's hilarious.

The "logic" of this garbage: "if my children know that gay marriage is legal, they're gonna become LESBOS and FORNICATE with their seven year old LESBO FRIENDS."

The bottom line: we can't turn you gay. If I could, I'd have had more sex.

It is irritating that the pespectives of the two sides in the issue of Gay marriage is woefully biased in favour of the pro gay marriage lobby. People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots. It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.


Well when they come up with an argument that's not stupid then we'll stop treating them like a bunch of short bus escapees.

I get the feeling that the person who wrote that would find the things he wrote about bad.

I think they'd be marvellous. :)

Agreed. I don't really get the boat reference though. Are we to presume that Michagain is an allegory for heaven? Then the bottom of the lake would be hell...

So if the boat is America... gays are a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

Try and say that five times fast.

It is irritating that the pespectives of the two sides in the issue of Gay marriage is woefully biased in favour of the pro gay marriage lobby. People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots. It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.

And the difference to any other topic discussed here or elsewhere is what, exactly?

People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots.

With good reason.

It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.

Some stances are simply stupid.

People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots.

If the shoe fits...

can someone explain the boat analogy the story explained? i dont get how gay marriage is drilling holes in the boat of america.

ah whatever. because this proves gay marriage turns our children gay before they even know what it is. :rolleyes:

can someone explain the boat analogy the story explained? i dont get how gay marriage is drilling holes in the boat of america.

ah whatever. because this proves gay marriage turns our children gay before they even know what it is. :rolleyes:

I explained it a couple of posts up. Michagin is Heaven, the bottom of the lake is hell. So gay marriage is a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

I explained it a couple of posts up. Michagin is Heaven, the bottom of the lake is hell. So gay marriage is a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

If Michigan is heaven, what the fuck is Detroit?

The boat is a metaphor for marriage. Gay marriage "drills a hole" in the boat and ruins marriage for everyone, because we all know that institution of marriage as it stands is perfect.

This reminds me very much of stories written in America in the 1900's, arguing against black people being allowed to have the vote, marry and procreate with white people, as that would similarly cause the "end of the world" aswell. The person who wrote the above story does not have a clue about the education system or world economics.

The boat is a metaphor for marriage. Gay marriage "drills a hole" in the boat and ruins marriage for everyone, because we all know that institution of marriage as it stands is perfect.

In what way would that affect my marriage what others do in theirs???

If Michigan is heaven, what the fuck is Detroit?

*shrug* purgatory? Valhalla? A different sphere of heaven?

If Michigan is heaven, what the fuck is Detroit?The 72 virgins? Or was that raisins.... ;)

With good reason. Some stances are simply stupid.

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid. Before you do that you may want to read this book


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400078660/sr=8-1/qid=1152712243/ref=sr_1_1/102-9262434-4864962?ie=UTF8

As well as several links

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0425/040623_diversions_geovparri.php

http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Gay_Friends_1.htm

I explained it a couple of posts up. Michagin is Heaven, the bottom of the lake is hell. So gay marriage is a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.
sorry bout that. you must have responded as my slow intarwebs were dragging their collective cement shoes.

If Michigan is heaven, what the fuck is Detroit?

Isnt there a town called Hell in Michigan?

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid.

How about this: recite a bigoted talking point and everyone here will shoot it down.

Edit: POST 1,337!

In what way would that affect my marriage what others do in theirs???It wouldn't. But that's a common argument seen in the US against gay marriage, especially from Christofascists who maintain that marriage is a religious concept. Quite hypocritical of them actually.

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid. Before you do that you may want to read this book


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400078660/sr=8-1/qid=1152712243/ref=sr_1_1/102-9262434-4864962?ie=UTF8
I like the title/description "Vintage origional" lol

It wouldn't. But that's a common argument seen in the US against gay marriage, especially from Christofascists who maintain that marriage is a religious concept. Quite hypocritical of them actually.
How i it hypocritical? honestly, i'm slow this morning and cant see what youre getting at.

god i hate . . .
*looks at calendar*
wednesdays!

How i it hypocritical? honestly, i'm slow this morning and cant see what youre getting at.

god i hate . . .
*looks at calendar*
wednesdays!

Because marriage has been around longer than any particular brand of religion claiming the ultimate divine inspiration today.

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid. Before you do that you may want to read this book


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400078660/sr=8-1/qid=1152712243/ref=sr_1_1/102-9262434-4864962?ie=UTF8

Because the only reason to be against gay marriage is religious, and religion is not a prerequisite for marriage.

QED.

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid.

It's stupid because there is no viable, rational reason for it. All it amounts to is "the fags are icky, and some of us will choose to use our imaginary friend as an excuse for it."

How about this: recite a bigoted talking point and everyone here will shoot it down.

Edit: POST 1,337!

Furthermore allowing marriage rights to all US citizens shows that America really is a free society. As it is the USA appears slightly hypocritical, sending army's across the world to bring so called freedom to other countries

Because marriage has been around longer than any particular brand of religion claiming the ultimate divine inspiration today.
oh okay. good point.

why does religion enter every argument in a country that was built on the foundation that relgion would not play a part in governing?

oh okay. good point.

why does religion enter every argument in a country that was built on the foundation that relgion would not play a part in governing?

Don't ask me, your people keep bringing that up.
It seems to be the only justification they can find for their prejudices and hatred.

oh okay. good point.

why does religion enter every argument in a country that was built on the foundation that relgion would not play a part in governing?

All countrys need a religion to proove they have authority, all religions need a scapegoat to proove they are in the right

why does religion enter every argument in a country that was built on the foundation that relgion would not play a part in governing?

Who cares about that particular country? Who gives a hoot what "foundation" it has? This is a debate hors de religion and one particular state.

Could you please explain why the anti gay marriage stance is stupid. Before you do that you may want to read this book


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400078660/sr=8-1/qid=1152712243/ref=sr_1_1/102-9262434-4864962?ie=UTF8

As well as several links

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0425/040623_diversions_geovparri.php

http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Gay_Friends_1.htm

Well, let's stick to the links for now, shall we?

conservative journal Weekly Standard, argues that gay marriage is part of a slippery slope that leads inevitably to polyamory and " . . . a variety of relationship contracts linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temp*orarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female." If this is a change society isn't ready for, Kurtz clearly isn't ready for it; he spends much of his article detailing how polyamory advocates support gay marriage, as though this were damning evidence of a massive conspiracy against traditional values—and, in a sense, it is: What does it mean if marriage is taken past its traditional limits and derives its legal basis solely from contract law? Polyamory has implications for alimony and custody of children in divorces; for the finances and real property of common-law marriage; for the tax code; and much more. All must fundamentally change if the logic of gay marriage is followed.

So if we let gays marry, we'll have to legalize threesome contracts?

Might not be a bad idea. After all, if there's a two guys and one girl in bed, and the girl gets pregnant... *shrug* on to the next.

•"Promoting" homosexuality: The concern is simply that with the rearrangement of so much law to accommodate it, and the stamp of "normality" attached, more and more people will try gay sex or—gasp!—"become" gay. The reasons this is seen as a bad thing, without considering any biblical sanctions, range from the traditional (i.e., yuck!) to issues of procreating for the species and public health with unsafe sex and multiple partners.

Well, let's see. This comes down to gays being bad. Oh noes!!!!!!!!!shift+one. The only decent argument is public health due to multiple partners. Wait, hold on. Allowing gay marriage will increase promiscuity? Huh?!?!?!

•Undermining "family values": If people long constrained by the limitations of traditional marriage like the new, post–gay marriage version too much, what does it do to the old institutions? Conservatives worry about the social impacts of removing the norms that have traditionally accompanied marriage, particularly gender and monog*amy. If marriage is seen as simply a legal contract, such vows might be easier to dishonor, or ultimately break, than when it is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime union under God. Society has already been moving in this direction for decades, with rising divorce rates and the dissolution of the traditional two-parent family as the prevalent model in America. Gay marriage, opponents fret, is more dirt in marriage's grave.

This comes down to the fact that they want to keep marriage as a religious affair. (Eh, funny wording, but what can you do?)

•Assimilation: Finally, opposition to gay marriage also comes from more radical gays who worry about the opposite influence and reject what they consider a funda*mentally straight institution. While a more popular criticism a decade ago, it's still out there: Why should people who've spent a lifetime rebelling against society's sexual norms suddenly aspire to embrace its most fundamental institution? This concern falls roughly into two camps: those content to let the newlyweds have their days while trying to ensure that others keep the freedom to rebel, and those who worry that marriage will undermine gay identity itself—that queerdom should not, by definition, aspire to assimilation.


Okay, not gay myself, so I really don't know what to say about this one...

How i it hypocritical? honestly, i'm slow this morning and cant see what youre getting at.

god i hate . . .
*looks at calendar*
wednesdays!The stance is hypocritical because those who adopt it typically attribute the end of civilization as we know it (seriously) to the marriage of a loving gay couple, yet defend all manner of abuse within a traditional marriage, maintaining that the sanctity of marriage is more important that the health and well-being of the individual parties within that marriage. For example, abused wives are still pastorly counseled to "submit" to their husbands, and pray that he will change. In addition, those adopting that stance typically ignore the ~50% divorce rate that is seen in traditional marriage. When challenged with it, they will maintain that it's still not as bad (read sinful) as one gay marriage.


...And I hate Wednesdays too. :)

•Assimilation: Finally, opposition to gay marriage also comes from more radical gays who worry about the opposite influence and reject what they consider a funda*mentally straight institution. While a more popular criticism a decade ago, it's still out there: Why should people who've spent a lifetime rebelling against society's sexual norms suddenly aspire to embrace its most fundamental institution? This concern falls roughly into two camps: those content to let the newlyweds have their days while trying to ensure that others keep the freedom to rebel, and those who worry that marriage will undermine gay identity itself—that queerdom should not, by definition, aspire to assimilation.

I dont think gays "rebel against societies norms" simply because they cannot control their sexuality, and its normal for homosexuality to exist.

I love how at the end of the story, there's some bit about how a gay couple is suing a church for not letting them marry there, yet as far as I know, gay marriage laws protect religious institutions from having to preform marriages that go against their religious views. The story is definitely fear mongering idiocy.

It's stupid because there is no viable, rational reason for it. All it amounts to is "the fags are icky, and some of us will choose to use our imaginary friend as an excuse for it."

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorence.

The anti-gay marriage position is not purely religious. While there is a religious aspect to it, there are plenty of secular reasons

Marriage is, for better or worse, a social instution. Its puropose is to be one of the agents for how society is shaped. Therefore society should be the one to shape it, and society at its presnet form many believe is not ready for such a dramatic shift. Marriage is already limited in other senses. It is limited with regard to age and the number of parterners involved. The genders that it currently applies to is also part of that limitation. To change that then suggests that marriage is not as powerful or significent a social institution as it has been previously. Certianly things in many parts of the western world have already seen this trend, with divorce rates spiriling upwards. Furthermore, accpetence of something as being a normal part of society doesnt just come with a stamp from the government. Marriage is a social institution and to force it to accept a modification that society itself is unwilling to accept (seeing as America is very much split down the middle on gay marriage) will only cause more problems than it would solve. Also, it is to assimilate what was once a very rebellious form of sexuality into the establishment.

Why should people who've spent a lifetime rebelling against society's sexual norms suddenly aspire to embrace its most fundamental institution? This concern falls roughly into two camps: those content to let the newlyweds have their days while trying to ensure that others keep the freedom to rebel, and those who worry that marriage will undermine gay identity itself—that queerdom should not, by definition, aspire to assimilation.

Gay marriage is far more complex an issue than those who are in favour of it will accept. And that perception of simplicity is a serious concern for quality of public debate.

I love how at the end of the story, there's some bit about how a gay couple is suing a church for not letting them marry there, yet as far as I know, gay marriage laws protect religious institutions from having to preform marriages that go against their religious views. The story is definitely fear mongering idiocy.

The story has the gays renting the church. Not having the church perform the ceremony.

If a church rents out its chapel, it can't discriminate.

I foresee that a lot of churches that don't like gays will stop renting out their chapel. You'll either have to have them perform the ceremony, or it's no deal.

Yes, it's fear mongering, but there will always be fear mongering.

The simple truth is that your children will turn out however they turn out - regardless of how much you try to isolate and indoctrinate them. You never know if they're going to be gay, straight, successful, unsuccessful, felonious, or a heroin addict. You do what you can, and accept that they will make their own choices, and learn a lot on their own in the world.

Children are not programmable robots. This should give everyone some comfort, because it means that the outside forces you may fear have even less chance of "programming" your children than you do.

I have one thing to say before I go to work.

Gay marriage will happen. Quit trying to delay it further.

All countrys need a religion to proove they have authority, all religions need a scapegoat to proove they are in the right

Funny... I thought most Western nations practice a seperation of religion and state? I know both this country and my original country do....

Funny... I thought most Western nations practice a seperation of religion and state? I know both this country and my original country do....

Its just an illusion. America was really founded on judeo-christian values. Like slavery.

Marriage is, for better or worse, a social instution.
One that originally included same sex couples.

Its puropose is to be one of the agents for how society is shaped.
I don't think that that's the purpose of marriage.

Therefore society should be the one to shape it, and society at its presnet form many believe is not ready for such a dramatic shift.
So when people weren't ready to consider black people to be people, it was alright to keep them as slaves?

Marriage is already limited in other senses. It is limited with regard to age and the number of parterners involved. The genders that it currently applies to is also part of that limitation.
Yes, it is limited, but it makes sense, those under 18 cannot enter a legal contract, marriage is a legal contract. Polygamous relationships are often not freely chosen by all participants and it is a bit of a mess although I could see how if precautions were taken it could work out... but there is no reason to limit it based on genders.

To change that then suggests that marriage is not as powerful or significent a social institution as it has been previously.
How does it do this?

Certianly things in many parts of the western world have already seen this trend, with divorce rates spiriling upwards. [/qquote]
Funny, in the US, Massateusets (sp?!) has one of the lowerst divorce rates while the Bible belt has the highest.

[quote]Furthermore, accpetence of something as being a normal part of society doesnt just come with a stamp from the government.
Ok... so that means it's alright to discriminate against same sex couples?

Marriage is a social institution and to force it to accept a modification that society itself is unwilling to accept (seeing as America is very much split down the middle on gay marriage) will only cause more problems than it would solve.
So when slavery was a social institution, it wasn't right to force those unwilling to accept that the slaves were human beings into accepting that fact?

Also, it is to assimilate what was once a very rebellious form of sexuality into the establishment.
How is being oneself being "very rebellious" exactly?

Why should people who've spent a lifetime rebelling against society's sexual norms suddenly aspire to embrace its most fundamental institution?
You act like people choose to be gay. You also just ripped that line out of one of the articles you linked without citing it.

This concern falls roughly into two camps: those content to let the newlyweds have their days while trying to ensure that others keep the freedom to rebel, and those who worry that marriage will undermine gay identity itself—that queerdom should not, by definition, aspire to assimilation.
So some gay people won't want to get married? Some straight people don't want to get married.

Gay marriage is far more complex an issue than those who are in favour of it will accept. And that perception of simplicity is a serious concern for quality of public debate.
Yeah, then provide some actual countering points instead of dribble.

Can anyone explain to me how marriage somehow shapes society?

The story has the gays renting the church. Not having the church perform the ceremony.

If a church rents out its chapel, it can't discriminate.

I foresee that a lot of churches that don't like gays will stop renting out their chapel. You'll either have to have them perform the ceremony, or it's no deal.
Funny, here churches don't have to allow gay marriages in their churches if they don't want them and it's perfectly legal for same sex couples to get married. (best thing Paul Martin ever did, imo)

Yes, it's fear mongering, but there will always be fear mongering.
So that makes it alright.

The simple truth is that your children will turn out however they turn out - regardless of how much you try to isolate and indoctrinate them. You never know if they're going to be gay, straight, successful, unsuccessful, felonious, or a heroin addict. You do what you can, and accept that they will make their own choices, and learn a lot on their own in the world.

Children are not programmable robots. This should give everyone some comfort, because it means that the outside forces you may fear have even less chance of "programming" your children than you do.
Um... ok... what the hell did this have to do with anything? I find it funny that you act in your other post as though gay people choose to be gay and in this one you say that they don't more or less.

Funny, here churches don't have to allow gay marriages in their churches if they don't want them and it's perfectly legal for same sex couples to get married. (best thing Paul Martin ever did, imo)


So that makes it alright.


Um... ok... what the hell did this have to do with anything? I find it funny that you act in your other post as though gay people choose to be gay and in this one you say that they don't more or less.


I think you're making the mistake of thinking that because I'm right wing and American that somehow I'm opposed to gays, and you read that into whatever I type and interpret it that way.

I'm a bisexual, and very actively so. Some gays IMHO choose to be that way, and some don't.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I don't feel that anyone should be forced to perform it against their religious beliefs. To each their own.

As for me, I married a woman, and we both swing, so I get the best of both worlds.

Stop kneejerking when you read my posts.

As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it.

this quote goes along with many different parts of our culture.

i have realized i can not change the minds of thousands to millions or maybe even billions of people. so i dont try. the only thing you can do is protect your own culture, your own family, and yourself. eventually the dust will settle and it will be time to create a new nation, and yet for some reason all the same debates will continue to linger around.

That story was the second dumbest thing I've read today. Right after the now-infamous "March Together For Life" blog...

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that because I'm right wing and American that somehow I'm opposed to gays, and you read that into whatever I type and interpret it that way.
No, I just didn't pay attention to who I was quoting and thought it was Adriatica. Sorry about that.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I don't feel that anyone should be forced to perform it against their religious beliefs. To each their own.
Oh yes, I agree completely.

Regarding moral situations, I like to say what I think. I have a slight prejudice againist homosexuality. That is because I grew up in a traditional family, don't understand it and find Brokeback Mountain not really that good (I didn't really watch the movie, just a detailed plot).

I use a term for homosexuality as an insult to my younger sibling, whom has a personality I find to be mainly negative, when I wish to hurt him verbally. I also use the sensitive subject as a nervous joke among friends.

However I don't really care what other people do with their private time, nor would I understand why people would spend so much time and tax money arguing about it when there is so much more better things to do. Like perhaps giving me the money (if you can spend so much on this topic, you don't really need it), and using your time to try to find a cure for my Granddad of Memory-loss-and-child-like-behavior-aesia. I don't remember the exact name.

I ask you people as a somewhat stupid child observing the debate, please just settle it and move on. There is a queue of important things to do, and this isn't really one of them. (Although the involved may disagree.)

That story was the second dumbest thing I've read today. Right after the now-infamous "March Together For Life" blog...Agreed.

This reminds me very much of stories written in America in the 1900's, arguing against black people being allowed to have the vote, marry and procreate with white people, as that would similarly cause the "end of the world" aswell. The person who wrote the above story does not have a clue about the education system or world economics.

Yeah. Especially due to their refferences on the economic impact of Domestic Partnership insurance claims rising... They talk as if domestic partner covership in corporate insurance plans is something "new", heck even in this not-near-future world they have been around abit and not had any economic impact.

emotive i quiet enjoyed it

People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots.

Just cos I'm intollerant doesn't make me an idiot.

I say bring back Section 28 and get damn well rid of gay marriage.

Hooray for sex-phobia! Sex is bad, and gay sex is TEH EVILORZ!

Newsflash for terrified parents: your children are going to have sex. Yes, the girl children too, Daddy's Little Angels. They will fuck. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will be someday, and probably for the rest of their lives.

Your children will have sex even if you never educate them about their bodies. They will have sex even if you refuse to let them know anything about contraception. They will have sex even if you tell them God hates fornicators. They will have sex even if every single homosexual on Planet Earth were rounded up and shot.

Your children will have sex.

Feel free to freak out for a little while. Get it out of your system. Then, once you've settled down a bit, you can start trying to parent.

Foolish foolish Bottle, no one parents anymore. That's what TV, the internet and daycare are for! Then when you raise a heathen you just cry about how society has corrupted your poor innocent little bastard.

Foolish foolish Bottle, no one parents anymore. That's what TV, the internet and daycare are for! Then when you raise a heathen you just cry about how society has corrupted your poor innocent little bastard.
*Forehead slap*

You're right, I forgot. Teh Gayz are destroying our noble institution of traditional marriage, in which white men purchase white females who then perform various menial tasks around the home. This is how marriage has always been, and shall always been, no matter what the godless homosexual feminist libruls say. Marriage must remain utterly unchanged for all eternity, or else society will crumble because we'll all be too busy fornicating and having abortion parties.

(Just look what happened in England when they started allowing divorce! Poof, and English society disappeared forever.)

Children need this healthy example to be the only one they see, because it's impossible for an adult parent to actually speak to their child as though it could think. Parents can't talk to their kids about Teh Sex, because then they'd have to figure out how to say "vagina" or "penis" without giggling...and who among us can manage that?!

Foolish foolish Bottle, no one parents anymore. That's what TV, the internet and daycare are for! Then when you raise a heathen you just cry about how society has corrupted your poor innocent little bastard.

:clap: :clap: :D

Foolish foolish Bottle, no one parents anymore. That's what TV, the internet and daycare are for! Then when you raise a heathen you just cry about how society has corrupted your poor innocent little bastard.That's going in my sig.

Nice response too, Bottle.:p

I swear, walk around and see how kids act today. If I'd even thought the word "No" when my mother told me something she'd of back handed me into the next county.

Little wonder they grow up to have no respect for anything or anyone, even themselves. Spoiled selfish egotistical little monsters.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...



What do you guys think of this?
Melodramatic, anti-gay marriage horse hocky.

I swear, walk around and see how kids act today. If I'd even thought the word "No" when my mother told me something she'd of back handed me into the next county.

Little wonder they grow up to have no respect for anything or anyone, even themselves. Spoiled selfish egotistical little monsters.
Meh, every generation says that about the new youngsters they see.

I think kids are smarter and more informed than anybody gives them credit for. I think that if young people weren't babied and talked down to so much, then maybe they'd have a chance of showing what they're really capable of. But, at least in my country, there's this stupid, backwards notion that kids shouldn't be educated or informed about anything. There's this idea that you should intentionally keep your child as ignorant as possible, and hide them away from anything remotely sexual, until one day they are an adult who has never learned the first goddam thing about sex, bodies, sexuality, or anything else. And then you should yell at them when they make uninformed or immature choices.

Claire thought back to something she had heard a pastor say on the radio back when the debate was raging. "Imagine you're on a large boat hoping to
get to the other side of Lake Michigan when one man insists he has a right to drill a hole through the bottom of his side of the boat. When you object, he argues that you are intolerant. He says you can just stay on your side of the
boat with your friends-what he does on his side of the boat has no bearing on what you do on your side. But when the boat sinks, everyone is in danger of drowning."
Hardly a correct comparison, in that case, drilling the whole in the boat affects you directly, because you'd sink. If your neighbors, right now, are gay and are..."expressing" it, if you never knew about it, would it affect you?
Anytime the news showed people who were opposed to same sex marriage, they appeared to be angry, hateful people.
Heh.
"In other news," the TV anchor said, "a showdown is coming between the state attorney general and a local church, over the churches alleged
discrimination for refusing to rent the historic downtown landmark to gay couples who
want to be married there..."
It's their property. It's their opinion as to what they want. I don't think anyone should be forced to perform a marriage, since it can be performed by a government official and not just a priest, and could be performed on other property.

Funny... I thought most Western nations practice a seperation of religion and state? I know both this country and my original country do....

Just because officialy state and religion are sepearted dosn't mean that it dosn't happen in practice. Only recently Tony Blaire said on national TV that the only perosn who can judge him is God

[QUOTE=Only recently Tony Blaire said on national TV that the only perosn who can judge him is God[/QUOTE]

Indeed he did. However, he seems to have forgoten that his boss, the Queen, can also judge him . . . .

Can anyone explain to me how marriage somehow shapes society?

Marriage creates social links between families, resulting in a much more unified and strengthened society. In many cultures marriage is a form of reciprocity exchange.

Isnt there a town called Hell in Michigan?

Yep, it's a very small town that consists of a bar, a few houses, and not much else. There's a marathon every year that gives out t-shirts that say "I ran to Hell and back".

Lesser Albion']Indeed he did. However, he seems to have forgoten that his boss, the Queen, can also judge him . . . .

In modern UK the Queen has little to no power over the prime minister

Just because officialy state and religion are sepearted dosn't mean that it dosn't happen in practice. Only recently Tony Blaire said on national TV that the only perosn who can judge him is God
Feh. My Leader speaks to God directly.

I think for those against Gay Marriage, they should just drop the whole "Sacanity of Marriage" crap. Let's face it, the scanity of marriage went out the window a looonnnggg time ago. It went out when Hollywood couples started marrying and divorcings like High School couples, and it went out the window when the divorce rate hit 50%.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...

What do you guys think of this?

Claire is an awful mother for lying to her daughter. There is absolutely no reason, no matter what you believe about homosexuals, that you should lie to a child and call a person's partner their "roomate". Would she try and pretend that a man cohabitating with a woman was just a "roomate"? Obviously not, since she wouldn't allow her daughter to have a "just friends" boy over to spend the night.

And if she's so worried that other people disagree with her beliefs, she should explain her own beliefs to her daughter and hope that her daughter ends up agreeing with her.

The complaints about social security and insurance companies are bullshit. If one set of couples shouldn't get them, then no one should. To complain that it'll cost more to treat everyone the same is irrelevant. Not to mention that the issue of extending all such benefits to "domestic partners" wouldn't be an issue if all people had equal access to legal marriage.

"Innocent" should not equate to "ignorant". A seven-year old shouldn't be introduced to sex, but they should not be ignorant about it either.

There will never be a case in which a church is forced to marry, or allow its premise to be used for the wedding of, homosexuals. If something like that were going to happen, we would've already had lawsuits for non-Catholics renting out Catholic churches (which are often very beautiful). The 1st Amendment hasn't been repealed, last time I checked, nor would it be by granting equal protection to homosexuals.

Feh. My Leader speaks to God directly.

What religion do you follow Farnhamia? (just out of interest)

Marriage creates social links between families, resulting in a much more unified and strengthened society. In many cultures marriage is a form of reciprocity exchange.

And you know gay marriage only rips society asunder!

What religion do you follow Farnhamia? (just out of interest)
:headbang: I'm an American.

:confused: Is it 2008 yet? Please? Pleeeeease?

And you know gay marriage only rips society asunder!
Quite right. And if we allow this, Osama bin Laden wins!

And you know gay marriage only rips society asunder!

I cna't see how you can get that, all marriage creates social links between two families, regardless of the sex of the participants.

:headbang: I'm an American.

:confused: Is it 2008 yet? Please? Pleeeeease?

Sorry, i've only just joined this forum and don't know much about it

Doesn't anyone see the many ways in which gay marriage would improve this nation and indeed the world?
If gay marriage were to be legalized many "in the closet gays" would feel less pressured to marry someone of the opposite gender only to the detriment of that person's life as well as their own by remaining unhappily married until death do they blissfully part or surprise surprise until they get divorced! Hmmmmm... Maybe that's why the divorce rate is so high.
It has been estimated that gays would spend more than 1 billion dollars a year on their weddings. Talk about an economic boost!
The earth is getting far too overpopulated. If gay marriages were to be allowed and children were allowed to be adopted by gay couples then not only would the population begin to decrease but more children would live in homes where they are loved by their parents. This would also decrease the burden presented to the state by orphans, because more of them would be taken care of by the citizens instead of by the state. Again gays are the superheroes of the economy.
Plus, if populations were to begin to decrease the amount of gays might go down anyhow, because it has been found that species that are overpopulated have more gays. This is because evolution, you know, that thing that improves a species, developed a gene that increases the chances of offspring being gay when an area is becoming overpopulated, as a means of controlling the numbers within said population.
Therefore gay is good.

A seven-year old shouldn't be introduced to sex, but they should not be ignorant about it either.

What do you mean by "introduced" to sex? I think we can all agree that a 7 year old shouldn't be having sex, but are you saying they shouldn't be told about what goes where?

if you accept something in culture it will grow. people have accepted many things into culture and it has become the culture.

I presume, and indeed hope, that he means they should be aware of the concept.

For the new fella, I hope you can withstand massive doses of sarcasm.

:headbang: I'm an American.

:confused: Is it 2008 yet? Please? Pleeeeease?

But...

Americanism is a religion now? Hot dog!

And the Lord spaketh, and he said,

'Thou shalt not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall be made. And a lack of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall be in effect.'

Quite right. And if we allow this, Osama bin Laden wins!
Osama already won. We arent looking for him.


You know that right?

Congress 'reallocated' the funding.

Big surprise. Hooray lying!

I cna't see how you can get that, all marriage creates social links between two families, regardless of the sex of the participants.
Of course it does. Sorry, got a little giddy there. My favorite question on the subject is, will an opponent of gay marriage explain how same-sex partners being married in the eyes of the law diminishes any existing or future heterosexual marriage? I don't mean the religious aspect, if your church does not wish to marry same-sex partners, so be it. Marriage is not ultimately a religious institution any longer, though I fully admit that it originated as such. The person offciating says, "By the power vested in me by <insert name of deity> and by the great state of <insert name of state>, I now pronounce you ..." And if you don't mail in the paperwork after the ceremony, I don't care if the Pope married you on the steps of St. Patrick's in New York during the St. Patrick's Day parade, assisted by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the US you ain't hitched.

So marriage has a huge secular component, and denying citizens the benefits of that component is fundamentally wrong. How hard is that to understand? I don't want to be married in your church, okay? Goodness, it's easy enough to found one of my own if I want that sanction. I just want my rights as a citizen of my country.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Osama already won. We arent looking for him.


You know that right?

Congress 'reallocated' the funding.

Big surprise. Hooray lying!
Heh. Yeah, funny how that happened, huh?

The anti-gay marriage position is not purely religious. While there is a religious aspect to it, there are plenty of secular reasons

All of the "secular reasons" end up being based in the religious, "gays are teh icky" argument. There is no secular reason to believe that there is anything wrong with a homosexual relationship. As such, there is no reason to believe that they should not receive equal protection under the law.

Marriage is, for better or worse, a social instution. Its puropose is to be one of the agents for how society is shaped. Therefore society should be the one to shape it, and society at its presnet form many believe is not ready for such a dramatic shift.

Just like when "society" decided that blacks were only allowed to marry blacks and whites were only allowed to marry whites? Many people weren't ready for the "shift" that allowed interracial couples to receive equal protection either.

Marriage is already limited in other senses. It is limited with regard to age and the number of parterners involved. The genders that it currently applies to is also part of that limitation. To change that then suggests that marriage is not as powerful or significent a social institution as it has been previously.

So when anti-miscegenation laws were banned, it reduced the power and significance of marriage as a social institution?

Also, it is to assimilate what was once a very rebellious form of sexuality into the establishment.

To say that it was ever a "rebellious" sexuality would be to claim that human beings can choose their sexuality. Tell me, when did you choose to be straight? At what point did the sexuality fairy come to you and give you the choice.

Something can only be "rebellious" if you are choosing to do it specifically to deny societal standards.


If a church rents out its chapel, it can't discriminate.

I don't think this is technically true. As long as the church remains a non-profit religious organization and receives no government funds, it can discriminate on religious principles.

Americanism is a religion now?

From the way some people act, one could be forgiven for thinking that.

But...

Americanism is a religion now? Hot dog!

And the Lord spaketh, and he said,

'Thou shalt not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall be made. And a lack of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances shall be in effect.'
But the President took up his Pen and wrote in the margin, "Regarding those parts of this document with which I, in my wisdom, do not agree, I feel no obligation to preserve, protect or defend them."

Marriage actually started as something completely seperate from religion. It started off simply as a way of demonstrating to your entire community that this is the person you will be spending the rest of your life with. It didn't matter what gender either of the participants were!

Marriage actually started as something completely seperate from religion. It started off simply as a way of demonstrating to your entire community that this is the person yu will be spending the rest of your life. It didn't matter what gender either of the participants were!
Bless you, it shouldn't but it does, somehow.

Doesn't anyone see the many ways in which gay marriage would improve this nation and indeed the world?
If gay marriage were to be legalized many "in the closet gays" would feel less pressured to marry someone of the opposite gender only to the detriment of that person's life as well as their own by remaining unhappily married until death do they blissfully part or surprise surprise until they get divorced! Hmmmmm... Maybe that's why the divorce rate is so high.
It has been estimated that gays would spend more than 1 billion dollars a year on their weddings. Talk about an economic boost!
The earth is getting far too overpopulated. If gay marriages were to be allowed and children were allowed to be adopted by gay couples then not only would the population begin to decrease but more children would live in homes where they are loved by their parents. This would also decrease the burden presented to the state by orphans, because more of them would be taken care of by the citizens instead of by the state. Again gays are the superheroes of the economy.
Plus, if populations were to begin to decrease the amount of gays might go down anyhow, because it has been found that species that are overpopulated have more gays. This is because evolution, you know, that thing that improves a species, developed a gene that increases the chances of offspring being gay when an area is becoming overpopulated, as a means of controlling the numbers within said population.
Therefore gay is good.

Please read this. I would like to hear your arguments for or against it.

Please read this. I would like to hear your arguments for or against it.

I might be missing something incredibly obvious here, but why would allowing gay couples to adopt decrease the population?

Marriage creates social links between families, resulting in a much more unified and strengthened society. In many cultures marriage is a form of reciprocity exchange.

Um...what? How does a word provide a stronger link between families? Is it like 2 couples cant be good friends unless they are both married?

And another question. Lets say an unmarried couple has a child. Lets then say said couple gets married and has another child. Can you say with absolute certainty that child B will turn out better than child A even if both were raised the same way?

I might be missing something incredibly obvious here, but why would allowing gay couples to adopt decrease the population?

I know gay men who have had kids. They wont feel as pressured to get married and have kids to fit into social norms if homosexuality were more readily acceptable.

I might be missing something incredibly obvious here, but why would allowing gay couples to adopt decrease the population?

Sorry, I thought I was more clear. Gay marriages would decrease the population because they cannot procreate. If they still want children then they will likely adopt them, which will decxrease the number of orphans. Two seperate reasons in the same sentence. Sorry for the confusion.

Meh, every generation says that about the new youngsters they see.

I think kids are smarter and more informed than anybody gives them credit for. I think that if young people weren't babied and talked down to so much, then maybe they'd have a chance of showing what they're really capable of. But, at least in my country, there's this stupid, backwards notion that kids shouldn't be educated or informed about anything. There's this idea that you should intentionally keep your child as ignorant as possible, and hide them away from anything remotely sexual, until one day they are an adult who has never learned the first goddam thing about sex, bodies, sexuality, or anything else. And then you should yell at them when they make uninformed or immature choices.

Meanwhile, just so they don't sound quite so sinister, they replace the word "ignorant" with "innocent". That way, instead of admitting that they want to keep their children ignorant, they can just talk about how "innocent" their children are.

The way I see it, the issue is not about legalizing same-sex marriages.

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents. The role of schooling is to prepare children to be productive members of society; however, in doing this, school administrators should remember that it is not their role to teach their students "right" and "wrong" outside of what is necessary to be courteous to other people in the community. Leave the more refined subjects, such as romantic partnership and sexual relationships, for parents to mold. Of course, with this, it is a given that teachers should still teach tolerance and courtesy for all people -- they just shouldn't be teaching their students their own personal values that may conflict with that of their students' parents.

Meanwhile, just so they don't sound quite so sinister, they replace the word "ignorant" with "innocent". That way, instead of admitting that they want to keep their children ignorant, they can just talk about how "innocent" their children are.

If anyone watches Adult Swim, this is the point Moral Orel tries to bring across. I dont think the show is any good, but its trying to show how shielding a child from reality is not an intelligent thing to do.

The way I see it, the issue is not about legalizing same-sex marriages.

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents. The role of schooling is to prepare children to be productive members of society; however, in doing this, school administrators should remember that it is not their role to teach their students "right" and "wrong" outside of what is necessary to be courteous to other people in the community. Leave the more refined subjects, such as romantic partnership and sexual relationships, for parents to mold. Of course, with this, it is a given that teachers should still teach tolerance and courtesy for all people -- they just shouldn't be teaching their students their own personal values that may conflict with that of their students' parents.

The problem then is that there are those parents that would disagree with the teacher teaching their child to be tolerant of all people, especially of those "skeevy gay freaks."

Meanwhile, just so they don't sound quite so sinister, they replace the word "ignorant" with "innocent". That way, instead of admitting that they want to keep their children ignorant, they can just talk about how "innocent" their children are.
And because Americans, as a collective, appear to be a bunch of sex-phobic rubes, this sort of trickery is accepted without question.

Never mind that we would leap all over some jackass who proposed a similar strategy in any other area. Imagine a movement that was dedicated to preventing children from ever seeing cars, riding in cars, taking driver's ed, or seeing movies in which cars are driven, until the kiddies grew up and got their first license. There would be no process of learning to drive, nor any exposure to driving whatsoever, until AFTER the kid already was a licensed driver.

Sounds bloody stupid, doesn't it? Well, that's what we've got in America when it comes to sex ed. Don't teach kids ANYTHING. Don't let them see ANYTHING. Pretend that sex doesn't exist, until somehow (magically) they've grown up and gotten married (without ever having a sexual feeling or sexual experience, no less).

The way I see it, the issue is not about legalizing same-sex marriages.

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents. The role of schooling is to prepare children to be productive members of society; however, in doing this, school administrators should remember that it is not their role to teach their students "right" and "wrong" outside of what is necessary to be courteous to other people in the community. Leave the more refined subjects, such as romantic partnership and sexual relationships, for parents to mold. Of course, with this, it is a given that teachers should still teach tolerance and courtesy for all people -- they just shouldn't be teaching their students their own personal values that may conflict with that of their students' parents.

In that case, we have to remove all children's books and stories that mention any romantic links whatsoever from the curriculum. We have to remove all mention of marrige and such from history classes. Nothing about breeding can be talked about in science. After all, apparently mentioning the way things actually happens equates to saying that such things are "right" and "teaching personal values."

Seriously, it is impossible to teach - to discuss human society - without discussing human relationships. No one said that the teacher should discuss "right and wrong", nor was that implied in the story. She simply taught (*gasp*) children about what types of families are formed in society. Even a parent who thinks gays are evil would have to teach their children that gays do, indeed, live together and form families. They simply would follow it up with, "But they are evil, evil sinners," instead of simply pointing out that it was there.

If I teach a child that a seed grows into a tree, am I suggesting that planting trees is "right" or "wrong"?

Sorry, I thought I was more clear. Gay marriages would decrease the population because they cannot procreate. If they still want children then they will likely adopt them, which will decxrease the number of orphans. Two seperate reasons in the same sentence. Sorry for the confusion.

But you're assuming that if gay couples don't get married they'll settle down as heterosexual couples and procreate like everyone else. I don't think allowing gay marriages would encourage them to not do so- indeed they may be more inclined to do so since they are a family and may desire children more through artificial insemination. However, I do agree with you.

Sorry, I thought I was more clear. Gay marriages would decrease the population because they cannot procreate. If they still want children then they will likely adopt them, which will decxrease the number of orphans. Two seperate reasons in the same sentence. Sorry for the confusion.
How would their marrige or non marrige effect the population? they would be gay either way

Sorry, I thought I was more clear. Gay marriages would decrease the population because they cannot procreate. If they still want children then they will likely adopt them, which will decxrease the number of orphans. Two seperate reasons in the same sentence. Sorry for the confusion.
But the gay men aren't going to procreate anyways without the aid of a surrogate mother.

The way I see it, the issue is not about legalizing same-sex marriages.

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents.

Then I assume you support banning stories like Cinderella from classrooms, yes? Along with every other fairytale in which a princess meets a prince, or a frog is kissed (ON THE LIPS!!!) and transforms into a handsome young man who sweeps a young maiden off her feet?

But you're assuming that if gay couples don't get married they'll settle down as heterosexual couples and procreate like everyone else. I don't think allowing gay marriages would encourage them to not do so- indeed they may be more inclined to do so since they are a family and may desire children more through artificial insemination. However, I do agree with you.

I'm not assuming that they will "settle down as heterosexual couples." Though I do think they would be more likely to do so. You have a good point about the artificial insemination. Though since it is such an expensive procedure that they still wouldn't have very many children. I don't remember the technical term for it but there is a practice where each person has one child that basically replaces them in the next generation. Thus the population neither increases or decreases. What I think should be done at this point in time though, is that people should try to only have one child per couple, thus decreasing the population.

How would their marrige or non marrige effect the population? they would be gay either way
One might argue that permitting adoption by gay parents will INCREASE the population, since children tend to do much better if they are adopted than if they are in group homes or bouncing through foster care for many years. Kids who are adopted into solid families are much less likely to wind up dead at a young age or in prison (where their options for reproduction are slightly limited).

How would their marrige or non marrige effect the population? they would be gay either way

interesting point. could argue. too lazy.

But the gay men aren't going to procreate anyways without the aid of a surrogate mother.
They will just adopt... after courts force legislatures to remove the "gay people can't adopt" clauses from updated laws.

:D :sniper: My brain just died. So I'll talk to y'all later.
Buh bye!:p

They will just adopt... after courts force legislatures to remove the "gay people can't adopt" clauses from updated laws.
In the US, we have a wonderful situation in which homosexuals are allowed to adopt children in many places, but they aren't permitted to wed. Indeed, there are places where a SINGLE gay person can adopt, but a gay COUPLE cannot. Gotta love that logic, huh?

No offense, Dracoangelica, but screw the economy and screw the excess population. As long as I am a citizen of the US, and not a convicted felon, I should have the same rights under the law as any other citizen. And yet many states have presumed to limit my rights by passing legislation forbidding same-sex couples from receiving the benefits of marriage as defined under their laws, while at the same time allowing those rights to opposite-sex couples.

If the states wish to do that they should first make it illegal to be gay, at the very least. Alternatively, the states could surrender their control over marriage to "the private sector." That would mean marriages are only solemnized by churches, who may discriminate as they please.

Gay people shouldn't need economic or ecological justifications for being allowed to marry. If you and your girlfriend can get married, why can't I and mine? Unless and until you step up and say, "Because you are a second-class citizen with only partial rights and we're passing a law to say so," everything else is just crap, and whoever uses any other argument against gay marriage is a coward.

:headbang: I will not look at any more gay marriage threads! :headbang:

In that case, we have to remove all children's books and stories that mention any romantic links whatsoever from the curriculum. We have to remove all mention of marrige and such from history classes. Nothing about breeding can be talked about in science. After all, apparently mentioning the way things actually happens equates to saying that such things are "right" and "teaching personal values."

Seriously, it is impossible to teach - to discuss human society - without discussing human relationships. No one said that the teacher should discuss "right and wrong", nor was that implied in the story. She simply taught (*gasp*) children about what types of families are formed in society. Even a parent who thinks gays are evil would have to teach their children that gays do, indeed, live together and form families. They simply would follow it up with, "But they are evil, evil sinners," instead of simply pointing out that it was there.

If I teach a child that a seed grows into a tree, am I suggesting that planting trees is "right" or "wrong"?
.....

I was simply saying that teachers shouldn't teach about relationships in such a way that endorses them, but rather teaches that they exist and that the people involved in them should be respected. Fairy tales are fine because they are not necessarily an open endorsement of the type of relationships on display. To clear things up, when I said "discussion", I meant talking about different types of relationships in such a way that condoned them as acceptable lifestyle choices. That's not the role of teachers. The teacher in the story, however, didn't appear to cross that line; she just stated what is true. Likewise I never made the argument that the teacher in the story was at fault. Odd that I have to clarify about an argument I didn't make in the first place...but I've come to expect that when it comes to militant gay activists.

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, organ transplants, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Found this and thought it would be interesting to post. Just to add, my brother and I have been brought up single-handedly for the last nine years by my lesbian mother and we have turned out a lot better, in my opinion of course, than many of the kids on our estate. We don't do drugs, get drunk and are high acheiving at school. I am in a steady hetrosexual relationship and my mum has always been open with me. At the age of six, when my mum realised, I understood perfectly and that never changed.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...

OMFG ITS T3H GAY!!111!

What do you guys think of this?

Gay marriage and adoption has been legal over here and a few other places for a while now. We're fine. In fact, we're safer, smarter and healthier than you guys.
I pay my taxes with a smile. When I read shite like this, the knowledge that I'm not a god fearing ignorant blob warms my heart.

Gay marriage and adoption has been legal over here and a few other places for a while now. We're fine. In fact, we're safer, smarter and healthier than you guys.
I pay my taxes with a smile. When I read shite like this, the knowledge that I'm not a god fearing ignorant blob warms my heart.
Yeah, but you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity.

:D

Regarding moral situations, I like to say what I think. I have a slight prejudice againist homosexuality.

Admiting it is the first step to solving the problem, congradulations.

Yeah, but you're gonna burn in hell for all eternity.

:D

If heaven is full of stupid fat people, then it fits my definition of "hell".

I cna't see how you can get that, all marriage creates social links between two families, regardless of the sex of the participants.

That noise you hear is the sarcasim whistling over your head . . .

This is getting fucking ridiculous.
It's amazing how ridiculous both homosexuals and heterosexuals are being.

Gay Marriage is legal in Canada.
When that bill was passed, did our country change?
Did homosexuals suddenly pop-up like wildfire?
Did gay pride parades stop?
Are people jumping out of the closet?

No, it's too bad America is so slow on passing such a bill but that doesn't change the fact that this bill does not change your lifestyle in the least.

Marriage is nothing.
Everyone in my town is allowed to be married to someone of the same sex.
Very few are.
The passing of such a bill does nothing.

People keep thinking it will bring rainbow peace throughout America.
It won't.

.....

I was simply saying that teachers shouldn't teach about relationships in such a way that endorses them, but rather teaches that they exist and that the people involved in them should be respected.

Then why didn't you say that? Instead, you stated that a teacher should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light, to the parents:

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents.

To clear things up, when I said "discussion", I meant talking about different types of relationships in such a way that condoned them as acceptable lifestyle choices. That's not the role of teachers. The teacher in the story, however, didn't appear to cross that line; she just stated what is true. Likewise I never made the argument that the teacher in the story was at fault.

Really?

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be (as it was displayed in the article), to parents.

Hmmm, you seem to be saying that the teacher in the artcile did something she shouldn't have.

Odd that I have to clarify about an argument I didn't make in the first place...

Actually, you did. If you have decided that you were wrong, it would make much more sense to say so instead of claiming not to have said something that you clearly did say.

but I've come to expect that when it comes to militant gay activists.

Ah, now we're attaching silly labels, are we? I could hardly be called militant or gay, although you might call me an activist. Unless, of course, you think advocating equal treatment of all citizens is "militant" or "gay"?

If we all played by God's rules, we wouldn't be arguing over gays, or shooting arabs, or worrying about the world falling apart because we're depleating it....too bad, most of humanity think they dont need Jesus, and yet most of humanity is in chaotic disharmony and wondering why. Pointing fingers at gays and saying that they're gonna cause America to go to hell is no better then gays pointing fingers at conservatives and calling them moronic pukebags. Simply put, all of us need Jesus.


and I'm definatly certain someone will come and "chime in" after me, putting in their 2 cent quote on my opinion, probably defiling it in some way, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. =_=

If we all played by God's rules, we wouldn't be arguing over gays, or shooting arabs, or worrying about the world falling apart because we're depleating it....too bad, most of humanity think they dont need Jesus, and yet most of humanity is in chaotic disharmony and wondering why. Pointing fingers at gays and saying that they're gonna cause America to go to hell is no better then gays pointing fingers at conservatives and calling them moronic pukebags. Simply put, all of us need Jesus.


and I'm definatly certain someone will come and "chime in" after me, putting in their 2 cent quote on my opinion, probably defiling it in some way, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. =_=
Let me be the first to "defile" your post, then. It is insulting in the extreme to claim that "all of us need Jesus." Don't pretend surprise when people react to you like the arrogant jerk you are choosing to be.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...



What do you guys think of this?Reminds me of those "Why is racism so bad?" articles that get churned out of Stormfront attempting to white wash Nazim.

It is insulting in the extreme to claim that "all of us need Jesus."

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

If we all played by God's rules, we wouldn't be arguing over gays,

Indeed. We would treat them as equal citizens of our country, just as we wish to be treated. There would be no argument.

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

I don't have any sins because I outright reject the concept of "sin". And why would I want to "save myself" from death? There's nothing to be feared in death, nothing to "delivered" from. Suffice it to say that "heaven" is not very high on my list of priorities.

Some would say that proselytism is, indeed, quite rude.

:fluffle:

Edit: My apologies for stealing your thunder, Bottle. I couldn't resist! :(

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.
hey, how's the air up there?

you know, up on your pedestal next to jesus?

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.Bottle was pointing out the rudeness of assuming you know better than anyone else what will happen when you physically die.

Agreed. I don't really get the boat reference though. Are we to presume that Michagain is an allegory for heaven? Then the bottom of the lake would be hell...

So if the boat is America... gays are a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

Try and say that five times fast.

Hell, Michigan!

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

I love the brain-washed Christians.
This one sounds like a 'Born Again'.

Bottle was pointing out the rudeness of assuming you know better than anyone else what will happen when you physically die.

And I was merely stating my beliefs, that all people need a savior. What good is believing in somthing if you keep silent it's message? Then what kind of believer does that make you? one with not much faith. I am not being some kind of ignorent jerk, I am voicing my opinion in this forum, just as anyone else. Opinions that people are not in favor of always find it offensive, but thats the point of the forum anyways.

And I was merely stating my beliefs, that all people need a savior. What good is believing in somthing if you keep silent it's message? Then what kind of believer does that make you? one with not much faith. I am not being some kind of ignorent jerk, I am voicing my opinion in this forum, just as anyone else. Opinions that people are not in favor of always find it offensive, but thats the point of the forum anyways.I'm not voicing mine out of politeness, because one of the main tenements of my "faith" is to strive to treat others as I wish to be treated. Being told I'm an idiot because I don't like a book as much as someone else does strikes me as arrogant, for some reason. Please realise, as hard as this may seem, that some people, a lot of people, actually believe there is no such thing as sin or life after death.

how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

Well as long as you understand that you were being quite rude.

JESUS SAVE ME! from your halfwit followers

What do you guys think of this?
Bullshit. Whoever wrote it obviously does not remember being a child, and does not understand physics.

If we all played by God's rules, we wouldn't be arguing over gays, or shooting arabs, or worrying about the world falling apart because we're depleating it....too bad, most of humanity think they dont need Jesus, and yet most of humanity is in chaotic disharmony and wondering why. Pointing fingers at gays and saying that they're gonna cause America to go to hell is no better then gays pointing fingers at conservatives and calling them moronic pukebags. Simply put, all of us need Jesus.


and I'm definatly certain someone will come and "chime in" after me, putting in their 2 cent quote on my opinion, probably defiling it in some way, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. =_=

Why do I need Jesus? Can he save me money on my long-distance calls? Because Vericom are fucking me over, to be honest.

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

Wait, you can save yourself from death?

Jesus never claimed he needed Jesus, why should anyone else?

It is irritating that the pespectives of the two sides in the issue of Gay marriage is woefully biased in favour of the pro gay marriage lobby. People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots. It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.
Just like all those in favour of gay marriage are portrayed as a bunch of amoral, mindless atheist hedonists.

Funny... I thought most Western nations practice a seperation of religion and state? I know both this country and my original country do....
Lol, separation of church and state in Ireland. lol, funny one Cabra.

Just because officialy state and religion are sepearted dosn't mean that it dosn't happen in practice. Only recently Tony Blaire said on national TV that the only perosn who can judge him is God
Separating church from state doesn't mean that religious people can't be political leaders.

Oh? and you can deliver yourself from death and atone for your own sins? That's amazing! You must be some kind of self savior, congratulations on saving yourself from death, I applaude you. I see that you alone can get into heaven by yourself. I need Jesus on the other hand, how rude of me to share my Savior with you.

There's no such thing as a 'Sin'. Just a series of catchphrases and slogans created by the religious elite at the beginning of organised religion, designed to cow their followers into blind obedience and abuse their lack of education.

And I was merely stating my beliefs, that all people need a savior. What good is believing in somthing if you keep silent it's message? Then what kind of believer does that make you? one with not much faith. I am not being some kind of ignorent jerk, I am voicing my opinion in this forum, just as anyone else. Opinions that people are not in favor of always find it offensive, but thats the point of the forum anyways.

Here is the problem. I'm an adult. I am educated. I have been exposed to all the ideas and tenants of christianity. I have chosen to reject them. The idea of "sharing" your savior assumes I am not intelligent and educated enough to have been exposed to it, considered it, and decided against it, long before you showed up and tried to "save" me.

And I was merely stating my beliefs, that all people need a savior.

And you did so in such a way that assumed (a) that you are absolutely correct and (b) that everyone agrees with you.

I believe that we need Jesus Christ as well, but I have no need to push that on others, or to assume that others agree with me. I also admit my own fallibility, and the fact that I may be wrong.

What good is believing in somthing if you keep silent it's message?

No one is saying that you shouldn't keep the message silent - simply that you should be a little more respectful of others. Your retort to Bottle, for instance, was really quite rude and arrogant.

I'm tempted to run his posts through the skeptics annotated bible just to point out contradictions, but I can't be bothered.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0425/040623_diversions_geovparri.php

Brings up four main points:

A: Undermines traditional family values
- Couldn't care less. The nuclear family is very overrated.
- Again, conservatives can have life-long loyal Godly marriages between one man and one woman all they want. The fact that other people have same-sex marriages is completely unconnected. Everyone can have their own way, because it doesn't have any effect on anyone else. There's no intrinsic right to live in a vacuum where only people like you exist.

B: Promoting homosexuality
- This is one of the 'stupid' arguments. Homosexuality is not contagious. We can't give you healthy, upstanding straight people 'gay cooties'. It is not a viral meme that spreads because you here that it's OK.
- The only veracity this has is that gay people will be more likely to come out of the closet and live as they are if it is more legally accepted. I don't see this as a problem.

C: Assimilation
- This is a valid point - but an easily resolved one. If you think marriage is a straight-centric institution, don't get married. Simple as that.

D: Contract law
- A fairly interesting point, actually - the only one of the bunch really worth reading. My two main objections would be 1) that homosexuality is a primarily biological trait, whereas there is no observed biological tendency towards polygamous relationships, which means that polygamist arguments lack one of the fundamental supports for pro-gay-rights argument, and 2) who cares?
- Is it really such a bad thing to reevaluate the entire basis of our contract law? Governmental marriage isn't supposed to be a socioreligious thing - it is simply a contract. Leave the socioreligious baggage to churches, communities, and families. Sure, the body of statute will become more complex, but who gives a fuck? Just treat it more like business contracts, except that it specifically deals with interpersonal relationships in pairs or small groups, generally specifically related to sexual activity, emotional attachment, and/or the formation of families, and you can tweak the structure of the law according to such.

The second link is just a bunch of bullshit about how lots of religions prohibit homosexuality, and religion is important, so we shouldn't have gay rights.

Brings up four main points:

A: Undermines traditional family values
- Couldn't care less. The nuclear family is very overrated.

Indeed. It is also not very traditional, unless "traditional" refers to a couple of generations that many people over the age of 60 currently idolize.

- Again, conservatives can have life-long loyal Godly marriages between one man and one woman all they want. The fact that other people have same-sex marriages is completely unconnected. Everyone can have their own way, because it doesn't have any effect on anyone else. There's no intrinsic right to live in a vacuum where only people like you exist.

Exactly. Unless you don't really believe that your "traditional family values" are correct, how is someone else believing something different going to hurt you?

If we all played by God's rules, we wouldn't be arguing over gays, or shooting arabs, or worrying about the world falling apart because we're depleating it....too bad, most of humanity think they dont need Jesus, and yet most of humanity is in chaotic disharmony and wondering why. Pointing fingers at gays and saying that they're gonna cause America to go to hell is no better then gays pointing fingers at conservatives and calling them moronic pukebags. Simply put, all of us need Jesus.

I agree. All these people quarrelling are just saying prayers to the devil.

Let's see. I've heard a billion different reasons why not to allow gay marriage, and all of them are more ridiculous than the rest. Frankly, someone needs to come up with something that doesn't fall in the realm of any of the following:

The Bible condemns homosexuality.

Whoop-dee-damn-doo. The Constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible. If your religion condemns something, then don't do it. Don't tell other people they can't do it. The First Amendment states that people can follow any religions they damn well please and you can't make your religion the law of the land.

Homosexuality is unnatural.

So is drilling for oil; you want to ban that too? Also, we're not entirely sure it's unnatural; many would wager it's not.

The people want to ban it. That's why they voted to ban it in their state constitutions.

That is, of those who bothered to vote on the issue and really understood it. Last I checked, less than half of the country is opposed to granting the rights associated with marriage to gay people.

If we allow gays to get married, society will collapse because EVERYONE will want to do it.

OK, so now that the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada no longer exist, I'm sure we can all buy cheap land there.

Gay parents are going to raise messed-up kids.

Look around. Lots of kids have gay parents. Hell, lots of kids have divorced parents, absentee parents, deceased parents, and it doesn't fit with the mother-father model of raising kids. As far as I can tell, gay parents won't mess kids up.

Children need a mother and a father.

No, I'm afraid they don't. My fiancee's father died when she was seven. To tell kids that their parents are unfit because they are gay is as ludicrous as telling kids that their one still-living parent is unfit because they are now single. What, we're going to pass laws against parents dying now too? That's what the argument amounts to. Good luck with that.

Marriage is sacred and must be kept sacrosanct.

OK, while we're at it, let's ban divorce, require a major religion to bless all marriages, and restore the days when the man was the undisputed master of the house and the woman was basically his property. Let's also ban cohabitation, since that's condemned as well. If you want to protect marriage, make people understand what they're getting into. Of course, most people who would argue for banning gay marriage would also argue for banning this type of education as well.

Gay people will molest their kids!

This one's my favorite. Plenty of straight people molest kids, but we're just going to overlook that and implicate the gay folks, who really aren't any more likely to molest kids.

But you can't allow gayness! Gay sex is teh gross!!!!!11111oneeleventy

Well, OK, guess what? I find a few things disgusting myself. No more weird piercings, for one. And no more eating mushrooms. I hate mushrooms, therefore they're gross and we need to exterminate all of them.



Anyone who can give me anything that isn't one of these excuses for banning gay marriage gets a metaphorical cookie.

If we allow gays to get married, society will collapse because EVERYONE will want to do it.

OK, so now that the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada no longer exist, I'm sure we can all buy cheap land there.

Don't forget Spain!

So if the boat is America... gays are a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

Try and say that five times fast.

Actually, I found that really easy to say five times fast. It's kinda fun :D

Still... meh. I used to argue over this, but soon found out that I just get branded an intolerent, backwards homophobe. Admittedly, I can't argue with that sort of stupidity.

At any rate, this is one of many reasons I will not have children. The world simply sucks too much.

The more people take God out of America, the further America will decline.

And Ice Hockey Players - lol. I've never actually seen someone make both sides of an argument and execute it their own favour. Interesting strategy.

*yawn*

Boring, boring and even more boring.

*yawn*

Boring, boring and even more boring.

Perhaps if all these NS General debates hadn't been repeated about 1,000 times, they'd be more interesting, eh? :p

Hilarious for me-I read the first page of this (standard settings) and it ended with a discussion of the boat metaphor. I skipped to the last page, still trying to sort out the boat metaphor. Quality.

How did the nation name Mac World go this long without being used?

I explained it a couple of posts up. Michagin is Heaven, the bottom of the lake is hell. So gay marriage is a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

Michigan is Heaven...? Sweet. What does that make the other 49 states, though...?

And how is gay marriage "a hole in our hull"? Or were you being sarcastic about that...?

To me, NOT letting gay marriage would be drilling a hole in the boat of America (or civil rights...)

Hilarious for me-I read the first page of this (standard settings) and it ended with a discussion of the boat metaphor. I skipped to the last page, still trying to sort out the boat metaphor. Quality.


There really was a lot of non-boat stuff in the middle! The boat metaphor got brought up again because as usual, many people don't read past the first page before responding...

*yawn*

Boring, boring and even more boring.
Your post added oh so much more excitement to the discussion:rolleyes:

There really was a lot of non-boat stuff in the middle! The boat metaphor got brought up again because as usual, many people don't read past the first page before responding...
Those lazy bastards...






...wait...

Michigan is Heaven...? Sweet. What does that make the other 49 states, though...?


Well, California is Nirvana, Virginia is Valhalla, Minnesota is Asgard...

Well, California is Nirvana, Virginia is Valhalla, Minnesota is Asgard...
Go minnesota!

Well, California is Nirvana, Virginia is Valhalla, Minnesota is Asgard...

But what about Delaware? Or Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Georgia? Connecticut? Massachusetts? Maryland? South Carolina? New Hampshire? New York? North Carolina? Rhode Island? Vermont? Kentucky? Tennessee? Ohio? Louisiana? Indiana? Mississippi? Illinois? Alabama? Maine? Missouri? Arkansas? Florida? Texas? Iowa? Wisonsin? Oregon? Kansas? West Virginia? Nevada? Nebraska? Colorado? North Dakota? South Dakota? Montana? Washington? Idaho? Wyoming? Utah? Oklahoma? New Mexico? Arizona? Alaska? Hawaii? Come on, think of the other states! I want to know which form of heaven I'm living in!

By the way, I live a few minutes away from Valhalla :)

I think it's hilarious.

The "logic" of this garbage: "if my children know that gay marriage is legal, they're gonna become LESBOS and FORNICATE with their seven year old LESBO FRIENDS."

The bottom line: we can't turn you gay. If I could, I'd have had more sex.

Fess up - you're after the free toaster oven! (http://fan.in-my-world.org/puppy/about.html)

Then why didn't you say that? Instead, you stated that a teacher should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light, to the parents:





Really?



Hmmm, you seem to be saying that the teacher in the artcile did something she shouldn't have.



Actually, you did. If you have decided that you were wrong, it would make much more sense to say so instead of claiming not to have said something that you clearly did say.



Ah, now we're attaching silly labels, are we? I could hardly be called militant or gay, although you might call me an activist. Unless, of course, you think advocating equal treatment of all citizens is "militant" or "gay"?
I posted my second reply in order to clarify what I meant, because my first post wasn't exactly clear. There's really no reason to respond with a, "That's not what you meant! See! Look at what it seemed like you were saying!" That's why I posted again to clarify...

And as for the last bit of your post...yup. That's me, alright. Out to get the gays, as usual. Keep the procedure going: approach as if under attack at all times.

Fess up - you're after the free toaster oven! (http://fan.in-my-world.org/puppy/about.html)Dammit, that's bait-and-switch. We were promised satanic dildoes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11287281&postcount=451). :D

But what about Delaware? Or Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Georgia? Connecticut? Massachusetts? Maryland? South Carolina? New Hampshire? New York? North Carolina? Rhode Island? Vermont? Kentucky? Tennessee? Ohio? Louisiana? Indiana? Mississippi? Illinois? Alabama? Maine? Missouri? Arkansas? Florida? Texas? Iowa? Wisonsin? Oregon? Kansas? West Virginia? Nevada? Nebraska? Colorado? North Dakota? South Dakota? Montana? Washington? Idaho? Wyoming? Utah? Oklahoma? New Mexico? Arizona? Alaska? Hawaii? Come on, think of the other states! I want to know which form of heaven I'm living in!

By the way, I live a few minutes away from Valhalla :)
I'd do all the states but I slept through 'the states' part of class and was stoned for the mythology class...

(neither is true, but I still couldn't assign each state it's on kind of heaven...)

I explained it a couple of posts up. Michagin is Heaven, the bottom of the lake is hell. So gay marriage is a hole in our hull that will send us to hell.

What's funny is that they're trying to fix it by Splitting the boat in two instead.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...



What do you guys think of this?


too much to read for another thread about fags. well, you asked what I thought.

too much to read for another thread about fags. well, you asked what I thought.
And from what I can tell we are all drummer for having heard that opinion …

And from what I can tell we are all drummer for having heard that opinion …

do u mean dummer?

Two gays got married down the street from me. My wife left me, my dog died and my truck broke down. Coincidence? Nay.

Two gays got married down the street from me. My wife left me, my dog died and my truck broke down. Coincidence? Nay.
Sounds like a country song

do u mean dummer?

Or maybe dumber?

Sounds like a country song
A very heterosexual country song - I agree.

Or maybe dumber?
Thats the one word auto correct got me

Ah, progressive countries are past this subject long ago. Man, some streams withing the Church in Switzerland even started marrying homosexuals 'before god' now (before only the 'technical' marriage was possible). Freaking get over it. Sheeesh. Let's look at it this way:

a) Apparently 10% of people are homosexual. Now, whether the state or society discriminates them or not: they won't have your 'normal life' (as in married with children). So, you can as well let them marry.
b) IF God exisists and IF he/she thinks that homosexuality is wrong, then he/she will punish homosexuals during the last judgement. If you are a Christian and you are faithful, then it's not up to you to judge, but up to God. It's a sacrilege to take the place of God (well, except for the Pope), remember that my faithful friends. Otherwise you might very well see the homosexuals ascend past you, while you're on the way to rot in hell for a mortal sin!

Ah, progressive countries are past this subject long ago. Man, some streams withing the Church in Switzerland even started marrying homosexuals 'before god' now (before only the 'technical' marriage was possible). Freaking get over it. Sheeesh. Let's look at it this way:

a) Apparently 10% of people are homosexual. Now, whether the state or society discriminates them or not: they won't have your 'normal life' (as in married with children). So, you can as well let them marry.
b) IF God exisists and IF he/she thinks that homosexuality is wrong, then he/she will punish homosexuals during the last judgement. If you are a Christian and you are faithful, then it's not up to you to judge, but up to God. It's a sacrilege to take the place of God (well, except for the Pope), remember that my faithful friends. Otherwise you might very well see the homosexuals ascend past you, while you're on the way to rot in hell for a mortal sin!
I heard stories that we used to be progressive....

Equal marriage is a human right just like sex is a human right.

The government instead of discriminating, should be providing condoms, diaphragms, the pill, and abortions paid for under tax dollars.

The reason: The poor have a right also to birth control.

a) Apparently 10% of people are homosexual. Now, whether the state or society discriminates them or not: they won't have your 'normal life' (as in married with children). So, you can as well let them marry.
b) IF God exisists and IF he/she thinks that homosexuality is wrong, then he/she will punish homosexuals during the last judgement. If you are a Christian and you are faithful, then it's not up to you to judge, but up to God. It's a sacrilege to take the place of God (well, except for the Pope), remember that my faithful friends. Otherwise you might very well see the homosexuals ascend past you, while you're on the way to rot in hell for a mortal sin!

The number of homosexuals is increasing rapidly, at least that's what my school teacher taught us.

The other piece is that Christians can't judge people, they must accept immorality because its not their place to judge. In fact if someone wanted to start killing people, a Christian shouldn't say anything, because it's not their place to judge.

I hate Christians, especially fundies and Christians that try to take their religion outside of Church, and I also hate Republicans for being racist.,

Equal marriage is a human right just like sex is a human right.

The government instead of discriminating, should be providing condoms, diaphragms, the pill, and abortions paid for under tax dollars.

The reason: The poor have a right also to birth control.
I agree with condoms and diaphragms. The pill maybe after an exam to make sure its safe. Abortion no, because abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control. But definately "morning after pill".

In other news, I particularly like the bit about how insurance and Social Security claims were higher. Turns out, giving equal rights is gonna cost us money, so sorry, gays, but no marriage for you. Puh-leaze. Slavery was the foundation of the Southern economy (if not the foundation, at least a very large part of it). Does anyone think that as a result we should've allowed slavery to continue after the Civil War? No, of course not, thats absurd. What, you want women to vote? Think of the tax dollars that would have to be spent making extra ballots and counting the votes! Come on.

The number of homosexuals is increasing rapidly, at least that's what my school teacher taught us.

The other piece is that Christians can't judge people, they must accept immorality because its not their place to judge. In fact if someone wanted to start killing people, a Christian shouldn't say anything, because it's not their place to judge.

I hate Christians, especially fundies and Christians that try to take their religion outside of Church, and I also hate Republicans for being racist.,

You talk about not judging people, then go on to talk about how u hate Christians and Republicans.

Gross generalizations are bad, whether they are being made by fundamentalist Christians about gays, Republicans about minorities, or you about Christians and Republicans. You fail to live up to your own standards. Perhaps say, I hate Christians who try to turn the US into a theocracy, or I have racists. Because honestly, I've met more democrat racists in my life that republican (tho I've met many more dems, period)

I noticed a trend in these threads lately. For every new one, there's less people actually putting up arguments againsts gays/gay marriage/etc.
Why is that?

I noticed a trend in these threads lately. For every new one, there's less people actually putting up arguments againsts gays/gay marriage/etc.
Why is that?
It's how gays operate. They flood your brain with homosexuality until you are in speechless awe of the sheer amount of information your brain has to deal with or you become gay yourself. It's all in the agenda.

It's how gays operate. They flood your brain with homosexuality until you are in speechless awe of the sheer amount of information your brain has to deal with or you become gay yourself. It's all in the agenda.
Stop disclosing trade secrets.

Stop disclosing trade secrets.
The point of no return has already been passed, brother. The end of heterosexuality is nigh.

I don't understand how people are victimized because they love each other and they are the same-sex. When someone loves each other they have the right to love and marry each other, I mean as a society we act like these people are killing society, hurting people, and ultimately ruining the dream to be free. That's the thing when people don't know something they don't want to understand them, they cast them aside and are reduced to subordinates. I'm not gay but hanging around my mom's friends, they are very nice, very caring, and very supportive. So I say to people who don't support gay marriage, you are the people that are prejudice, you are the people who have to divide people so you can feel empowered.

The point of no return has already been passed, brother. The end of heterosexuality is nigh.
Ahh, then world domination shall be achieved soon.
*insert maniacal laughter here*

Come to think of it, I want you all to voice your opinion as loud as you could.

Spend ridiculous amounts of time and money supporting your views on this topic. I mean, this is actually really important right? The fate of the world hinges on this intense debate!

I would love it if everyone could just continue and be busy complaining to each other. That gives me more freedom to do what I like.

WC Imperial Court: Hei, that's the good thing about being Atheist. I CAN judge while not commiting a sin. ;) Christians (and Muslims for that matter) judge and go to hell. I judge and have fun with it. ;) Muahahahaha.

I noticed a trend in these threads lately. For every new one, there's less people actually putting up arguments againsts gays/gay marriage/etc.
Why is that?

The idiot homophobes are a dying breed, fortunately. Either that, or they're all over at Stormfront now...

You talk about not judging people, then go on to talk about how u hate Christians and Republicans.

Gross generalizations are bad, whether they are being made by fundamentalist Christians about gays, Republicans about minorities, or you about Christians and Republicans. You fail to live up to your own standards. Perhaps say, I hate Christians who try to turn the US into a theocracy, or I have racists. Because honestly, I've met more democrat racists in my life that republican (tho I've met many more dems, period)
I would not put too much into what he says he plays the parody bit often

I posted my second reply in order to clarify what I meant, because my first post wasn't exactly clear. There's really no reason to respond with a, "That's not what you meant! See! Look at what it seemed like you were saying!" That's why I posted again to clarify...

The second post pretty much says the opposite of what the first one says. Forgive me if I see that as a change, rather than a clarification. It isn't the first time I have had a discussion with you in which you made a complete about-face and then tried to claim you had said the same thing all along.

And as for the last bit of your post...yup. That's me, alright. Out to get the gays, as usual. Keep the procedure going: approach as if under attack at all times.

My dear, you quite clearly attacked me. I responded. I never said that you were "out to get the gays." It would seem that you are projecting a bit here. You seem to be the one approaching everything as if you are "under attack", while simultaneously attacking me and then complaining when I respond.

I found this online and thought it was an interesting take on gay marriage. Even though it is very one sided and opinionated. Take a look...



What do you guys think of this?
It's propaganda using tissue-thin veils of excuses why gay folks shouldn't get married. Social Security going under because of gay partnerships? Please. If one partner of the pair doesn't have insurance and instead takes Medicare or other care for the medically uninsured sponsored by the government, the "burden" is the same. And the time and effort saved on pairing accounts up under one person's name rather than having two separate ones, writ nationally, is actually a minor money saver.

As for the kid, seven is not too young to discuss how other people live. Gays aren't going to turn anyone else gay.

The last straw was the boat/drill analogy. Drilling a hole in a boat at sea is clearly a danger. There is no shown, legitimately hypothesized or clear danger of any kind with regard to gay marriage.

This is horseshit, that's what I think. And I think you know it was Christian propaganda and trying to pass it off as an honest starting point for debate is disingenuous at best.

It is irritating that the pespectives of the two sides in the issue of Gay marriage is woefully biased in favour of the pro gay marriage lobby. People who are opposed to gay marriage are indeed portrayed as backward, ignorent, intollerant, idiots. It is not a good situation for public debate on a subject, when all the proposers of one side of the issue are portrayed as being stupid for merely taking that side.
And those on the other side are portrayed as sinning, child-brainwashing perverts out to subvert everything Middle America believes in. :rolleyes:

oh okay. good point.

why does religion enter every argument in a country that was built on the foundation that relgion would not play a part in governing?
A damn fine question that I know the answer to but am ashamed to say out loud.


Okay, I will.

Control. Power and control, pure and simple.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that because I'm right wing and American that somehow I'm opposed to gays, and you read that into whatever I type and interpret it that way.

I'm a bisexual, and very actively so. Some gays IMHO choose to be that way, and some don't.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I don't feel that anyone should be forced to perform it against their religious beliefs. To each their own.

As for me, I married a woman, and we both swing, so I get the best of both worlds.

Stop kneejerking when you read my posts.
Wow.

I'm almost disappointed that you don't use religion in your occasional right-wing stances (the one's I've read anyway). This post would have invalidated the lot of them.

As for swinging, good on ya and yer wife. Stay clean!

The problem with this story is this mother doesn't know when to start, and the homosexuals in this story don't know when to quit.

There is no good reason to be teaching a child about homosexuality, they don't know much about sexuality in general, much less the idea of a man liking another man or whatever. I didn't start really liking girls till I was about five, (I was mature for my age) and I didn't understand WHY I liked them till I was about ten. I didn't learn about sexuality untill maybe thirteen?

The thing is, parents need to be open to the idea of thier kids being homosexual. You can bassicaly tell when they're little, and it's not cause they're confused or whatever, there are basic mannerisms that boys and girls do, and when they do the oppisite, you know something's up. I think gay marriage should be legal, it's not a matter of how God thinks of it cause God's not here now is He? It's what we think of it. We're in control of this life, so we need to do what we think is best. Under the state (not God) marriage should be legal and just as easy to obtain. The biggest threat to marriage and love in general is not homosexuality, but the aloof mindset that we can break it off without a twink of guilt or regret. THAT's what's scary.

But on that note, children don't understand, so there's no reason to be explaining to them these complicated things. Intime they'll learn, it's just the natural cycle. And the mother got way too worked up over her daughter saying she'd marry her friend Amanda. Little girls don't know what marriage really means, they just think of family, togetherness, and a union of peoples. (Father, Mother, son, daughter, doggy, whatever..) And that's just a woman's nature to care about those things more then men. Not to say that a man can't without being gay, because personaly I do. But it's just a more femmenine quality.

If you're really concerned about the well-being of your child, you'll pay attention to how they act around other's, alone, and unto you. All it takes is some simple observation. And even if they were gay it's not the end of the world. As long as my kid didn't growup to be a crackwhore or a swinger, I'm okay with whatever they are or aren't.. Even bisexuals which I dislike ALOT I can tolerate if they're monogamus. Just because I'm tolerant of other people's choices doesn't mean I can't have moral standards. You have to.. Or else why bother living? Even animals have limits to what they do..

I didn't start really liking girls till I was about five, (I was mature for my age)

Bull
Shit

The way I see it, the issue is not about legalizing same-sex marriages.

Teachers, especially those who teach children as young as seven years old, should leave all discussion of relationships, no matter how light the discussion may be(as it was displayed in the article), to parents. The role of schooling is to prepare children to be productive members of society; however, in doing this, school administrators should remember that it is not their role to teach their students "right" and "wrong" outside of what is necessary to be courteous to other people in the community. Leave the more refined subjects, such as romantic partnership and sexual relationships, for parents to mold. Of course, with this, it is a given that teachers should still teach tolerance and courtesy for all people -- they just shouldn't be teaching their students their own personal values that may conflict with that of their students' parents.
Impossible! Not teaching anything that conflicts with every parent's values?!? With 20-30+ kids, do you know how impossible it would be to not offend any of them?

A kid asks a teacher, after reading a story in which a married couple plays a central role, "are you married to a [man/woman] like those people"? And the teacher, who is any of not married, not married but living with an opposite sex person, or married/partnered with a same sex person says.......what?

I agree that teachers shouldn't be delving too far into right and wrong, but they DO need to get into what actually EXISTS. You can't be productive if you select out the facts because one or two of them are potentially to your disliking. As a kid, I cried my eyes out when I learned that stray dogs were euthanized (even looked up the term "euthanasia" and learned something when I stopped wailing), but I needed to know that because we had a dog and I didn't like to leash him on his walks.

Nobody, NOBODY, is suggesting kids are taught about homosexual sex practices, just like NOBODY is suggesting we teach them about hetersoexual sex practices. But to keep a seven-year-old in the dark about the basic desire to pair up with someone is stupid. Scary stupid.

I'm not voicing mine out of politeness, because one of the main tenements of my "faith" is to strive to treat others as I wish to be treated. Being told I'm an idiot because I don't like a book as much as someone else does strikes me as arrogant, for some reason. Please realise, as hard as this may seem, that some people, a lot of people, actually believe there is no such thing as sin or life after death.

Or have a different concept of what both of those words refer to.

The point of no return has already been passed, brother. The end of heterosexuality is nigh.
That's right. Those who disclose further Gay Mafia secrets will fall victim to the Assassins of the Mauve Hand.

That pink laser targeting dot on your chest is the last thing you'll ever see, punk!

The problem with this story is this mother doesn't know when to start, and the homosexuals in this story don't know when to quit.

Potentially viable thesis...too bad you left it hanging so badly.


There is no good reason to be teaching a child about homosexuality, they don't know much about sexuality in general, much less the idea of a man liking another man or whatever. I didn't start really liking girls till I was about five, (I was mature for my age) and I didn't understand WHY I liked them till I was about ten. I didn't learn about sexuality untill maybe thirteen?
And that was you. Hooray for individuality. You have no way of knowing what any individual kid can grasp until you try. You were just getting warm with generalizations, though:

The thing is, parents need to be open to the idea of thier kids being homosexual.
Agreed...back on track...

You can bassicaly tell when they're little, and it's not cause they're confused or whatever, there are basic mannerisms that boys and girls do, and when they do the oppisite, you know something's up.
Aw, damn. You were doing so well, too.

"Basic mannerisms that boys and girls do?" You've never met a tomboy or a sissy? I knew several. I was the sissy of my neighborhood (despite being a fan of all sports...I just read a lot of books and knew a lot of words at a young age...good ol' American labeling) and even got beat up by a tomboy or two because I refused to fight for any reason. I was a nine-year-old who dug passive resistance, Gandhi and the like. As we grew up, I didn't become gay, and one of the persecuting tomboys dated me in high school. She's now married and a devoted heterosexual (as odd as that pairing of words sounds) with a pair of kids herself.

Sorry, pal, but you're just mind-manglingly narrow-minded on this one and full of offal to boot.

I think gay marriage should be legal, it's not a matter of how God thinks of it cause God's not here now is He? It's what we think of it. We're in control of this life, so we need to do what we think is best. Under the state (not God) marriage should be legal and just as easy to obtain.
Confusing, but agreeable. And "should" is wrong. Marriage "under the state" IS legal, religious or not. For three years, I was a license agent. and handed out marriage licenses at my county auditor's office. $52 and legal signatures were all I had to see, and the license had to be returned with witness and officiant signatures in the correct places within 30 days of solemnization. No church need ever enter the picture.[/quote]

The biggest threat to marriage and love in general is not homosexuality, but the aloof mindset that we can break it off without a twink of guilt or regret. THAT's what's scary.
There y' go. I agree. Except that homosexuality isn't "not the biggest threat", it's exactly NO threat.

But on that note, children don't understand, so there's no reason to be explaining to them these complicated things. In time they'll learn, it's just the natural cycle.
You ever sprain anything jumping to conclusions like that? Things are only as complicated to a child as adults make them. How's about we tell 'em "adults live together when they like one another." That keeps marriage or domestic partnerships of any kind in the realm of adulthood, which kids DO understand as that "far-away place of being old", as one told me.

And the mother got way too worked up over her daughter saying she'd marry her friend Amanda. Little girls don't know what marriage really means, they just think of family, togetherness, and a union of peoples. (Father, Mother, son, daughter, doggy, whatever..)
Agreed...he's headed for the 40...the 30...the 20...

And that's just a woman's nature to care about those things more then men. Not to say that a man can't without being gay, because personaly I do. But it's just a more femmenine quality.
...the 10 and OH! He steps on his own penis and fumbles the ball! What a shame.

It's this kind of assumption that makes me laugh my arse off. You admit that you yourself care about relationships, but women care more. How do you function in such a twisted mind? Should I have taken a hint about your views from your botching of the word "feminine"?

If you're really concerned about the well-being of your child, you'll pay attention to how they act around other's, alone, and unto you. All it takes is some simple observation. And even if they were gay it's not the end of the world.
BUT WAIT! He's ruled down by contact and manages to salvage a field goal out of the drive!

Agreed.

As long as my kid didn't growup to be a crackwhore or a swinger, I'm okay with whatever they are or aren't.. Even bisexuals which I dislike ALOT I can tolerate if they're monogamus. Just because I'm tolerant of other people's choices doesn't mean I can't have moral standards. You have to.. Or else why bother living? Even animals have limits to what they do..
Oy. But after the field goal, the kicker goes into a touchdown celebration breakdance. Yikes.

You're okay with whatever they are...except...if they decide their sexuality means they want to find someone who will marry them but allow both of them to have sex with others in a consensual process...you'll just have to disown them. Nice.

Nice capitals on the "a lot" for disliking bisexuals. Again, explain what they do to you exactly? And was "Monogamus" the Roman emperor who first standardized marriage?

You're clearly not all that tolerant of others' choices, but I grant you that you're better than average in America. Kudos.

Sorry for so roundly mocking you, but seriously, you should read what you post before you post it. You might learn to edit...or at least learn to laugh.

The problem with this story is this mother doesn't know when to start, and the homosexuals in this story don't know when to quit.

The only homosexuals mentioned in the story were the mother's brother, who she chooses to LIE TO HER OWN DAUGHTER about.

There is no good reason to be teaching a child about homosexuality, they don't know much about sexuality in general, much less the idea of a man liking another man or whatever.

Then there is no good reason to be teaching the child about heterosexuality either. Don't ever tell a child that a man might like a woman or a woman might like a man. Stop reading all fairy tales.

Or maybe, just maybe, a child is never too young to start learning about the world in which they live. No one is suggesting that we teach a child to be homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter), but there is no reason not to discuss it.

The thing is, parents need to be open to the idea of thier kids being homosexual. You can bassicaly tell when they're little, and it's not cause they're confused or whatever, there are basic mannerisms that boys and girls do, and when they do the oppisite, you know something's up. I think gay marriage should be legal, it's not a matter of how God thinks of it cause God's not here now is He?

I agree with all of this, save one part. You cannot necessarily tell that a child is going to be gay, bi, or straight by childhood mannerisms.

Under the state (not God) marriage should be legal and just as easy to obtain. The biggest threat to marriage and love in general is not homosexuality, but the aloof mindset that we can break it off without a twink of guilt or regret. THAT's what's scary.

Hear hear.

But on that note, children don't understand, so there's no reason to be explaining to them these complicated things. Intime they'll learn, it's just the natural cycle.

Just like you shouldn't explain to a child that their bodies will change during puberty until it happens? If a child asks a question, your answer should never be, "I'll tell you when you're older." You don't have to go into elaborate detail if you think they won't understand, but there is no topic that you can't talk about at all.

pquote]And the mother got way too worked up over her daughter saying she'd marry her friend Amanda. Little girls don't know what marriage really means, they just think of family, togetherness, and a union of peoples.[/quote

Indeed. As a young girl, I asked already married men to marry me when I got older. Everyone just thought it was cute.

Even bisexuals which I dislike ALOT I can tolerate if they're monogamus.

Wow. At first, you seemed to be a pretty open-minded person. Then, all of a sudden, you come out with this bullshit. What exactly is wrong with a person who happens to be attracted to both men and women?

Just because I'm tolerant of other people's choices doesn't mean I can't have moral standards. You have to.. Or else why bother living? Even animals have limits to what they do..

Sexuality is not a choice.

The story is one long litany of goofy misunderstandings about children, sexuality, national character, education, and the Bible. I find it not a bit funny that the woman worries about her daughter becoming a lesbian because of her Biblical beliefs when the Bible is in fact completely silent on lesbianism. Unless that girl suddenly sprouts a penis, it's patently impossible for her to stick her genitals in a man's ass, which was what was prohibited by the Jewish Torah (which is odd in and of itself. . .I have to wonder, given her respect for Torah, whether her husband shaves his sideburns).

More importantly, however, the story's value is predicated on the notion that her child is a complete innocent whose virtue will inherently be corrupted by the taint of education. That ought to be preposterous on its face, as teaching children about homosexuality doesn't make them homosexual any more than teaching them about Canada turns them Canadian. At a deeper level, however, her child isn't innocent. No child is. To be honest, I was a lot more of a sadistic little bastard at five than any time since. With respect to sex, the same thing applies: I spent a good deal of my early childhood playing "You show me yours and I'll show you mine", and I know just about everybody did as well. To be honest, the one's that didn't are usually also the people who kind of freak me out. Children, even young children, are sexual beings, and to pretend that they are merely blank slates to write their future sexual lives on is just ridiculous.