NationStates Jolt Archive

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

Right, because gays surrounded by heterosexuals are immediately converted....
oh, wait........

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

come on, you can troll better than that

make an effort at least

I think it's fine but we should take the precaution of ensuring we place them in special compounds so they don't affect normal people with their lifestyle.

It will also make it easier to round them all up if we change our minds though we don't need to tell them that bit.

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

What's wrong with tolerance of sodomy? Lots of people do it - gay and straight.

And, if you look at actual studies, you'll probably find that children raised by gay couples do not have a heightened chance of being homosexual. Believe it or not, teh gay is not contagious.

I'd sooner have a kid in a loving home than not, no matter WHAT orientation the parents had.

As soon as you can find me peer reviewed studies that actually show that, I'll agree. Since, however, you probably cannot, I'm just going to laugh.

How about: Gay.

I don't know if there is a right or wrong dealing with many things.

What's wrong with tolerance of sodomy? Lots of people do it - gay and straight.

Sodomy ftw!

And, if you look at actual studies, you'll probably find that children raised by gay couples do not have a heightened chance of being homosexual. Believe it or not, teh gay is not contagious.

Sadly true. :(

It certainly isn't wrong, but saying its "right" is odd. Saying straight marriage is "right" is odd too. Neither are right or wrong, really. It's right that the government shouldn't be able to tell you who you can and can't marry. And it's stupid that the rights of the minority are put up to the vote of the majority in these ridiculous ban gay marriage amendments in various states. It isn't your call who I marry, it isn't the presidents or the congress', and it sure as hell isn't the majority's. I honestly cannot believe that the minorities rights that the majority will enjoy no matter what are being put to vote.

And of course they should be allowed to adopt children. The can't adopt because the kids would be raised to be "tolerant of sodomy"? Are you joking? The only real argument there is that the kid wouldn't have a mother and a father, which is natural and undeniably good, but plenty of kids only have one parent anyway, and they tend to be just fine. They won't catch the gay disease, at least until the homosexual conspiracy gets around to putting gayness in our water.

Yeah, every person deserves happiness...its in the Damn Declaration...

Besides, Marriage is just a meaningless institution anyway, It only means something if You Believe it means something, Animals mate for life all the time without being blessed by some stupid Preacher...

I think it would be much better for a child to be adopted by a loving gay couple than to remain in foster care or something.
That is a horrible situation and I doubt the child will care whether or not its parents partake in sodomy.

Yeah, every person deserves happiness...its in the Damn Declaration...

Besides, Marriage is just a meaningless institution anyway, It only means something if You Believe it means something, Animals mate for life all the time without being blessed by some stupid Preacher...

And look at the state of their society! They don't even have aqueducts, dagnabit!

Ah...I see that that extension I had to update is to tell you what I'm listening to, as if anyone cares...

----------------
Now playing: The Challengers - Cruel Sea (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/the+challengers/track/cruel+sea)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

i, for one, welcome our new sodomite overlords

Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy

I couldn't decide between two responses. Take your pick, folks:

1. Oh NO! Not tolerance! Especially not of buttsex! People tolerating buttsex will completely destroy society! Noooooooooooo!

2. *sings* To sodomy, it's between God and meeee! To S&M!

and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

Even if this were actually some sort of terrible consequence, all evidence has suggested this is complete nonsense. Gay parents produce straight and gay children in the exact same proportions as straight parents; the only big difference is that gay parents do, in fact, produce fewer rampantly homophobic children. But hey, maybe that's a serious "reprecution"... :rolleyes:

Exactly.
There's nothing wrong with it.

Everyone I know loves sodomites.
Though they might not count. Most all of them are stoned more than adulturesses in the Old Testament.

Corveren;13776349']I doubt the child will care whether or not its parents partake in sodomy.

I'm guessing that those kids adopted by gays, like most children, will like to imagine their parents as celibates.

I'm guessing that those kids adopted by gays, like most children, will like to imagine their parents as celibates.

Well, wouldn't we all?

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

Hell, i have Four Parents, More Steppdads than you can shake a stick at, one of whom attempted murder of my Father, and i only see my mom if im not working on her weekend...

I think IM more fucked up than someone raised by a stable Gay Couple would be...

Corveren;13776380']Well, wouldn't we all?

That's why I put in "like most children".

Can we merge this thread with the 'Australians...' thread because I don't think Australians should be allowed to have children either, there's a high chance those kids will turn out to be Australians as well.

...that's not good, not good for anyone.

right as long as you dont call it marriage. marriage is a religious thing and religions for some silly reason forbid gays getting married so its right as long as it gets a diffrent name is only to do with the law and you kill all priests

right as long as you dont call it marriage. marriage is a religious thing and religions for some silly reason forbid gays getting married so its right as long as it gets a diffrent name is only to do with the law and you kill all priests

"WHEEEEE"
*goes on a priest killing rampage armed with nothing more than a AH-1Z super cobra and an entire artillery fire team at his back*

right as long as you dont call it marriage. marriage is a religious thing and religions for some silly reason forbid gays getting married so its right as long as it gets a diffrent name is only to do with the law and you kill all priests

You can have non-religious marriages you know...also, No one said the church had to recognize the marriages, Government and Church shouldnt mix...

Can we merge this thread with the 'Australians...' thread because I don't think Australians should be allowed to have children either, there's a high chance those kids will turn out to be Australians as well.

...that's not good, not good for anyone.


I heard that sometimes children go on to have children themselves.
Because their parents had them.
It's like some kind of widespread disease.
It's starts with the gays, Chinese, and the Austrailians, and I hear the Jews are doing it too.
And sometimes, those kids are just like they're parents.
It's like, their characteristics are contagious.
Crazy stuff man!
Maybe sodomy is contagious too!
We'll never know...

Yeah, every person deserves happiness...its in the Damn Declaration...

Besides, Marriage is just a meaningless institution anyway, It only means something if You Believe it means something, Animals mate for life all the time without being blessed by some stupid Preacher...

Yes, but they don't have health insurance, inheritances, et cetera that can only be accessed by their partner if they are legally married.

And marriage does not always require a clergyman.

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

*Eyes closed*

...

Kimi... Urusai.


*Opens eyes*

Yours is such an... interesting... view.

First of all, being homosexual is like liking artichokes: It's NOTHING wrong.

Second of all, the notion that they develop a "tolerance of sodomy", put quite simply, as long as it's between consenting adults, it's FINE.

Third of all, most homosexuals are raised by straight parents. That sorta puts a damper on your not-backed-by-any-studies notion.

But feel free to try and use this as a rationale for denying them rights you don't want them to have out of sheer intolerance. I will, however, feel even freer to use this kind of skewed notion as my scratching post whenever I'm bored.

*Closes eyes*

...

Tanoshikatta...

An important thing to note is that the definition of sodomy is much wider than the one implied here. In fact, sodomy is any sexual act which is not penile-vaginal penetration. Which means all those lovely things that straight people do besides the "do" are considered sodomy. And all those equally lovely things that gay people do (including the "do") are also considered sodomy.

Now that's what I call a sticky situation.



:fluffle:

^
|
|
|
|
ZOMG! im in ur neighborhood, kissin' ur d00dz!


Also, Heikoku... you had fun with that?

First of all, being homosexual is like liking artichokes: It's NOTHING wrong.

The artichokes disagree.

The artichokes disagree.

Way to toss my anime-style delivery down the drain. :p

Way to toss my anime-style delivery down the drain. :p

Oh come on, you could totally animé-up an artichoke.

Oh come on, you could totally animé-up an artichoke.

True, but I meant the delivery. Y'know, the whole "closing eyes, speaking Japanese, opening eyes, delivering a beating, closing eyes, speaking Japanese" thing. ;)

True, but I meant the delivery. Y'know, the whole "closing eyes, speaking Japanese, opening eyes, delivering a beating, closing eyes, speaking Japanese" thing. ;)

*sigh* … FINE.

*closes eyes*
*speaks Japanese*
*opens eyes*

The artichokes disagree.

*closes eyes*
*speaks Japanese*

Yes, but they don't have health insurance, inheritances, et cetera that can only be accessed by their partner if they are legally married.

And marriage does not always require a clergyman.


Exactly, so why does it matter if you call it marriage, the only opponents would be Clergymen and Religious Folk...

*sigh* … FINE.

*closes eyes*
*speaks Japanese*
*opens eyes*

The artichokes disagree.

*closes eyes*
*speaks Japanese*

LOL.

I actually meant you sorta took the wind off mine...

But... You had STYLE this way... See? ;)

i, for one, welcome our new sodomite overlords

I'm willing to just roll over and accept them.

I just have to wonder how many of the anti-gay marriage people are ... disturbed ... by dreams they recently have, and dare not speak the name of.

True, but I meant the delivery. Y'know, the whole "closing eyes, speaking Japanese, opening eyes, delivering a beating, closing eyes, speaking Japanese" thing. ;)
^_^;;

頭がいたいい...

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

YOMANK (5 points to the first person who knows where that's from...)

As soon as you can find me peer reviewed studies that actually show that, I'll agree. Since, however, you probably cannot, I'm just going to laugh.



How about: Gay.

I don't know if there is a right or wrong dealing with many things.

Indeed.

I couldn't decide between two responses. Take your pick, folks:

1. Oh NO! Not tolerance! Especially not of buttsex! People tolerating buttsex will completely destroy society! Noooooooooooo!

2. *sings* To sodomy, it's between God and meeee! To S&M!

You could sing this one (http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/hair/sodomy.htm)...

Can we merge this thread with the 'Australians...' thread because I don't think Australians should be allowed to have children either, there's a high chance those kids will turn out to be Australians as well.

...that's not good, not good for anyone.

Or maybe we can go back to the good old days of the anti-miscegenation laws....

right as long as you dont call it marriage. marriage is a religious thing and religions for some silly reason forbid gays getting married so its right as long as it gets a diffrent name is only to do with the law and you kill all priests

Hmmm... When did the Christianity (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4651803.stm) become not a religion? :confused:

Kimi... Urusai.

Omae is what you want there. ;)

I just have to wonder how many of the anti-gay marriage people are ... disturbed ... by dreams they recently have, and dare not speak the name of.
*Blinks* Does this mean that Cthulhu is actually gay? :eek:

Hastur is the Unspeakable one.

Oh, son of a b
All too easy. ;)

*Blinks* Does this mean that Cthulhu is actually gay? :eek:

Hastur is the Unspeakable one.

Oh, son of a b

What's wrong with tolerance of sodomy? Lots of people do it - gay and straight.

And, if you look at actual studies, you'll probably find that children raised by gay couples do not have a heightened chance of being homosexual. Believe it or not, teh gay is not contagious.

That's what the liberals WANT you to think. Teh ghey is totally contagious. You don't even need to have physical contact--gay marriage is so powerful that every time one occurs, two straight people get the gay!

And of course they should be allowed to adopt children. The can't adopt because the kids would be raised to be "tolerant of sodomy"? Are you joking? The only real argument there is that the kid wouldn't have a mother and a father, which is natural and undeniably good, but plenty of kids only have one parent anyway, and they tend to be just fine. They won't catch the gay disease, at least until the homosexual conspiracy gets around to putting gayness in our water.

I don't know that it is natural, actually--and it's not good in all cases. There are many people who would benefit from one parent getting the hell out.

gay merrage is absolutely as right as any merrage. whether or not any merrage is right at all is another question entirely.

=^^=
.../\...

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

The majority of children on this planet have to perform manual labour for slavewages and go to bed hungry every night. Many have to learn how to murder other humans and to move on when surrounded by brainsplatter. Many have mothers dying from AIDS, malnutrition and so on.

And you focus on "sodomy" ?
Nice to see where your priorities are.

A reason i would support gays raising children is the option between a orphan with no home, no family, or being raised by a gay couple. I would choose the latter.

And so what if the child tunes of gay? Its like a child raised in a straight home will probably turn out straight why is the right? Personally i believe homosexuality is biological.

I hate the argument that marriage is between a man and a women. Who says some white guys hundreds of year ago? I mean things change, slavery was "ok" back then. What was seen as right then, isn't always right for the present.

Gays shouldnt be financially (or socially) better or worse of if they are in a simular scenario then a straight couple. But about calling it marriage, prehaps there should be some respect for relgion and an alternate name used.

Civil union is one term iv heard used before.

I'm guessing that those kids adopted by gays, like most children, will like to imagine their parents as celibates.

Hell, those kids will have it even better because unlike with straight parents they don't have the horrible bit of logic that for them to exist their parents would have HAD to have had sex. Therefore they can happily continue to believe their parents don't even know what sex is.

Right, duh. Of course, happy marriages are beneficial to children. :D

Gays shouldnt be financially (or socially) better or worse of if they are in a simular scenario then a straight couple. But about calling it marriage, prehaps there should be some respect for relgion and an alternate name used.

Civil union is one term iv heard used before.
Marriage does not belong to religion. If religion is under the misconception that it own marriage, then religion needs to get the fuck over itself.

My atheist parents have enjoyed over thirty years of atheist marriage. Deal with it. :D

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.


I'd like to see even a smidgen of evidence pointing to that 'fact'.

Homosexual parents make for excellent ones, would be a viewpoint supported more by this little thing called 'evidence'

YOMANK (5 points to the first person who knows where that's from...)




YOMANK! That post is funny!
by DarkDan Oct 10, 2003

^_^;;

頭がいたいい...

Your head hurts? o_O

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.


Oh yeah, and heterosexual parents always churn out 2.5 perfect little kids playing in the yard with the white picket fence and the golden lab right?

Tolerance of sodomy?
In some places sodomy is still illegal. What I do in my bedroom with other consenting people is my buisness. Tolerance of diversity is the key to a harmonious and peaceful society.

I'm gay and my parents are breeders. It's the same for every other gay person I know. I have never met a gay person who has same sex parents.

Where's the option for "Wrong unless they are raising children"?

Right. No exceptions. Next question.

The majority of children on this planet have to perform manual labour for slavewages and go to bed hungry every night. Many have to learn how to murder other humans and to move on when surrounded by brainsplatter. Many have mothers dying from AIDS, malnutrition and so on.

And you focus on "sodomy" ?
Nice to see where your priorities are.

Exactly.

Or, in the words of Lewis Black:

"On the list of things we should be worrying about, 'Gay Marriage' is on page six right behind 'Are We Eating Too Much Garlic as a People?'"

Are We Eating Too Much Garlic as a People?

Are we? :eek:

gay merrage is absolutely as right as any merrage. whether or not any merrage is right at all is another question entirely.
Cohenn]A reason i would support gays raising children is the option between a orphan with no home, no family, or being raised by a gay couple. I would choose the latter.

And so what if the child tunes of gay? Its like a child raised in a straight home will probably turn out straight why is the right? Personally i believe homosexuality is biological.

I hate the argument that marriage is between a man and a women. Who says some white guys hundreds of year ago? I mean things change, slavery was "ok" back then. What was seen as right then, isn't always right for the present.
Gays shouldnt be financially (or socially) better or worse of if they are in a simular scenario then a straight couple. But about calling it marriage, prehaps there should be some respect for relgion and an alternate name used.

Civil union is one term iv heard used before.

What these post tell me is that being in favor of gay marriage damages some poster's abilities to communicate in English.

At least there is more evidence in favor of this hypothesis that that of the OP.... ;)

Marriage does not belong to religion. If religion is under the misconception that it own marriage, then religion needs to get the fuck over itself.

My atheist parents have enjoyed over thirty years of atheist marriage. Deal with it. :D

And I still haven't heard back from that poster as to why he considers Christianity to not be a religion...

YOMANK! That post is funny!
by DarkDan Oct 10, 2003

Mmmm... No points for that one...

Are we? :eek:

:::breaths on my Korean neighbor:::

Nope, Mr. Kim's not phased. Send! More! Garlic!

Personally I think the government should get out of "marriage" altogether and only give out civil unions to any two adults. Let religious groups and individual citizens decide what they consider a marriage. As a Pagan I support polygamy from a religious standpoint, but don't think the government should recognize it. At the same time lots of churches, synagogues, covens, etc. perform gay marriage.

By using the word marriage for ANY union we are saying that certain religions are right, and others are wrong.

Edit: Gay and lesbians should be allowed to adopt.

As soon as you can find me peer reviewed studies that actually show that, I'll agree. Since, however, you probably cannot, I'm just going to laugh.

Actually, there was one evening where I was curious to see if the orientation of the parents affected the child. I did about an hour and a half of research and I actually found opposite of what you would expect.

The majority studies from my sources showed that there was NO correlation between orientation of parents and orientation of children. I believe one of these studies was like a 17 year study of several dozen families. I saved all the text onto a word document but I dont have the source right now. I could google the text and probably find it later if youre interested?

However, I did find three sources that said the opposite. They stated that children raised by homosexual parents were more likely to become homosexual, do worse in school, and have other psychological problems. I later found out that all three of these sources could be traced to studies done by the Family Research Institute, which I later found out was nothing more than a hate think tank that exists for the purpose of maintaining traditional families. The study caused the dude that did it to quit the American Psychological Association because he wouldn't cooperate when they questioned his testing methods.

What these post tell me is that being in favor of gay marriage damages some poster's abilities to communicate in English.

At least there is more evidence in favor of this hypothesis that that of the OP.... ;)



And I still haven't heard back from that poster as to why he considers Christianity to not be a religion...



Mmmm... No points for that one...



:::breaths on my Korean neighbor:::

Nope, Mr. Kim's not phased. Send! More! Garlic!

posts, posters', than, breathes, fazed. If you're going to hang yourself out on a limb by making poor spelling a character flaw, best be prepared to be hit with your own mallet -- and deservedly so.

posts, posters', than, breathes, fazed. If you're going to hang yourself out on a limb by making poor spelling a character flaw, best be prepared to be hit with your own mallet -- and deservedly so.

He's obviously talking about garlic being a substitute for those little hand-held dealies in Star Trek.

He's obviously talking about garlic being a substitute for those little hand-held dealies in Star Trek.

"Set garlic on stun..."

you're going to hang yourself out on a limb by making poor spelling a character flaw, best be prepared to be hit with your own mallet -- and deservedly so.

Nice one.

My opinion? I don't give a damn about what you do in your bedroom, as long as whoever you do it with is/are participating on their own free will and is/are of legal age.

As for the marriage part, religion shouldn't have monopoly to marriage. Nor should it have any say on what kinds of marriages are "legal".

When talking about adoption it should never be a question of the sexual orientation of the would-be parents, but wrether the child would get loving and caring home.

Then again I'm atheist and believe religion should never have any say about anything other than how its members practice their religion...

As long as gay marriage comes with the right to gay divorce, where the partners rip each other's financial lives apart, and where the children are party to the sneering, abusive bickering that accompanies heterosexual divorce, complete with the eternal flickering flames of visitation and child support battles, I'm all for it.

Exactly -- along with the realization that ALL marriages (with the poly/swinger minority excepted) are "same sex" marriages. Once you're married, it's the same sex.

I know, lame and overused, but I hadn't seen it here yet.

As long as gay marriage comes with the right to gay divorce, where the partners rip each other's financial lives apart, and where the children are party to the sneering, abusive bickering that accompanies heterosexual divorce, complete with the eternal flickering flames of visitation and child support battles, I'm all for it.

Wife caught you giving porn of her to minors, eh?

Whoa! Ba-ZING!

As long as gay marriage comes with the right to gay divorce, where the partners rip each other's financial lives apart, and where the children are party to the sneering, abusive bickering that accompanies heterosexual divorce, complete with the eternal flickering flames of visitation and child support battles, I'm all for it.

Wife caught you giving porn of her to minors, eh?

Wife caught you giving porn of her to minors, eh?

Nope. I've been married twice before, and in each case, it was the wife who got the financial screws put upon her, and lost her children.

I think that Neesika would be horrified to find out what a lawyer can really do. I just happen to have the right lawyer to screw my previous spouses out of everything they thought was theirs.

Want to leave? Then you leave on my terms. If you want to fight it in court, I guarantee you'll be leaving with far less.

Want to leave? Then you leave on my terms. If you want to fight it in court, I guarantee you'll be leaving with far less.

Gee, I can't even BEGIN to understand why your wives left you. :rolleyes:

Could it have something to do with the whole dickwaving?

Gee, I can't even BEGIN to understand why your wives left you. :rolleyes:

Could it have something to do with the whole dickwaving?

First one left because I was working too many hours - but hey, if she wanted to be the profligate spender, someone has to make the money.

The second one went mental after being unable to breastfeed, and refused treatment and even refused to allow my child any food at all. I had criminal charges of child abuse filed, in order to get a court order giving me the ability to take the child from her and raise him.

Oooh - my third wife is an extremely happy woman. Go figure...

First one left because I was working too many hours - but hey, if she wanted to be the profligate spender, someone has to make the money.

The second one went mental after being unable to breastfeed, and refused treatment and even refused to allow my child any food at all. I had criminal charges of child abuse filed, in order to get a court order giving me the ability to take the child from her and raise him.

Oooh - my third wife is an extremely happy woman. Go figure...

1- She left nonetheless, and, so far, it seems, on her terms.

2- So, you're actually bragging about having a lawyer that's able to take a kid from a mentally unstable woman who won't feed him? That's not "leaving on your terms", that's something Ted Buckland, from Scrubs, could do!

3- For how much longer?

1- She left nonetheless, and, so far, it seems, on her terms.

No, her terms were "I get the kid, I get the house, you get the debt, you pay me alimony and child support".

Unfortunately for her, I got the kid, I got the house, she got the nearly 200,000 dollars in debt, and she's lost her drivers license for not paying child support. Oh, and no alimony, and none of the property or assets.

2- So, you're actually bragging about having a lawyer that's able to take a kid from a mentally unstable woman who won't feed him? That's not "leaving on your terms", that's something Ted Buckland, from Scrubs, could do!

I can't have someone committed for treatment against their will, you know. After she couldn't breastfeed the child, she refused anything except trying to breastfeed some more. After the child was hospitalized, she tried to prevent him from getting treatment. She then wanted to leave, abandon the child, keep the house, and get paid alimony. She seemed lucid enough in court, and the judge agreed that she wasn't insane - she was held responsible.

She has also gotten the short end of the stick. Six months in jail, no drivers' license (funny how women don't want to pay for child support), still on the hook for child support, and currently living on the street.

3- For how much longer?

Looks like forever right now.

Looks like forever right now.
Or until you drive her batshit insane.

No, her terms were "I get the kid, I get the house, you get the debt, you pay me alimony and child support".

Unfortunately for her, I got the kid, I got the house, she got the nearly 200,000 dollars in debt, and she's lost her drivers license for not paying child support. Oh, and no alimony, and none of the property or assets.



I can't have someone committed for treatment against their will, you know. After she couldn't breastfeed the child, she refused anything except trying to breastfeed some more. After the child was hospitalized, she tried to prevent him from getting treatment. She then wanted to leave, abandon the child, keep the house, and get paid alimony. She seemed lucid enough in court, and the judge agreed that she wasn't insane - she was held responsible.

She has also gotten the short end of the stick. Six months in jail, no drivers' license (funny how women don't want to pay for child support), still on the hook for child support, and currently living on the street.



Looks like forever right now.

1- Fair enough.

2- Still, a case against a woman that won't feed a kid is a slam dunk.

3- Let's take a moment from our discussion to appreciate the TWO possible, and funny, interpretations of what you said. :D

Or until you drive her batshit insane.

If she was you, that would be a possibility.

It's not a possibility, because she's not you.

If she was you, that would be a possibility.

It's not a possibility, because she's not you.

Still, if your marriage is looking like forever, right now, it SAYS something. :D

Still, if your marriage is looking like forever, right now, it SAYS something. :D

Forever is a good thing for me. And for her. And for the kids.

It's the ideal behind marriage - that you find someone you can be partnered with forever.

Forever is a good thing for me. And for her. And for the kids.

It's the ideal behind marriage - that you find someone you can be partnered with forever.

Sorry, the joke was just too good to let go...

Back to the OP - it's fine with me as long as they get the gay divorce option as well.

Back to the OP - it's fine with me as long as they get the gay divorce option as well.

I agree with you there.

I agree with you there.

And I hope they get my concept of "forever" (a good one) and yours (a bad one).

I personaly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry but be barred from adopting/raising children. Allowing them to do so would have serious pyschological reprecutions such as tolerance of sodomy, and a heightened chance of becomeing homosexual themselves.

:rolleyes:

I think gay marriage is a pretty cool guy. eh scares homophobes and doesn't afraid of anything.

The only objection I would have to gays adopting children is that this could put the children in danger of being attacked...not by his parents but by the intolerant people leaving around them.

The only objection I would have to gays adopting children is that this could put the children in danger of being attacked...not by his parents but by the intolerant people leaving around them.

Which is why such intolerance should be made into something akin to believing the Earth is flat.

Which is why such intolerance should be made into something akin to believing the Earth is flat.

Yes... good luck with that...

And while we achieve that... we should put children in a position where they would be ostracized by the rest of society?

Maybe in places where people is more tolerant. But were I live give children to adoptive gay parents would be impossible. The population would make their lifes impossible.

Yes... good luck with that...

And while we achieve that... we should put children in a position where they would be ostracized by the rest of society?

Maybe in places where people is more tolerant. But were I live give children to adoptive gay parents would be impossible. The population would make their lifes impossible.

By that token, blacks should have just kept on being slaves. After all, they got ostracized when they were free.

By that token, blacks should have just kept on being slaves. After all, they got ostracized when they were free.

And interracial couples never should have had children. After all, they were often mistreated because their parents weren't in the "right" kind of marriage.

mmm.. interesting point.

I think thats the counter argument for the whole lets-wait-for-society-to-be-ready argument... shall we wait for society to be just?

But then again... black adults who fought for the freedom of their people got ostracized

IS NOT THE SAME

as children with out any kind of sexual definition ostracized for the parents that adopted them.

Dem's example of interracial children is pretty much the same, though. Should interracial couples have been forbidden to reproduce?

By that token, blacks should have just kept on being slaves. After all, they got ostracized when they were free.

mmm.. interesting point.

I think thats the counter argument for the whole lets-wait-for-society-to-be-ready argument... shall we wait for society to be just?

But then again... black adults who fought for the freedom of their people got ostracized

IS NOT THE SAME

as children with out any kind of sexual definition ostracized for the parents that adopted them.

Dem's example of interracial children is pretty much the same, though. Should interracial couples have been forbidden to reproduce?

But adoption is not reproduction.

There is no connection between the parents and the child, no more than the LEGAL one the STATE is willing to grant.

When the state gives a children into adoption it has to make sure that the enviroment the children is going to grow is healty for it (physically and emotionally)...

But adoption is not reproduction.

There is no connection between the parents and the child, no more than the LEGAL one the STATE is willing to grant.

When the state gives a children into adoption it has to make sure that the enviroment the children is going to grow is healty for it (physically and emotionally)...

Children are removed from their biological parents if those parents cannot provide a safe and healthy environment for them. So should interracial children have been removed from their parents?

Children are removed from their biological parents if those parents cannot provide a safe and healthy environment for them. So should interracial children have been removed from their parents?

They would still be of mixed race. Removing them from their parents doesnt removes the condition of being of mixed race.

Being adopted by homosexuals is not a characteristic of the children.

And stop timewrapping me :(

But adoption is not reproduction.

So it is your contention, then, that interracial couples should not be allowed to adopt?

There is no connection between the parents and the child, no more than the LEGAL one the STATE is willing to grant.

Tell that to any adopted child or their parents.

When the state gives a children into adoption it has to make sure that the enviroment the children is going to grow is healty for it (physically and emotionally)...

I agree. And there is nothing inherently unhealthy about having a gay couple as parents. Given the state of our foster care and orphanage systems, such a situation is actually much healthier than the alternative.

And let's be honest here, children are mistreated because of their parents all the time. Is one of the parents fat? Children may be mistreated. Are the parents members of a minority religion? Children may be mistreated. A minority race? A disliked job? And so on...

Are you going to argue that adoptive parents must be middle class WASPs with nothing that anyone might possibly dislike them for?

They would still be of mixed race. Removing them from their parents doesnt removes the condition of being of mixed race.

Being adopted by homosexuals is not a characteristic of the children.

Sure, but you can't always tell someone's of mixed race just by looking at them. Should a child have been taken away and given to families where both parents had close to the same skin color as the child, so that they could "pass" as belonging to one race or the other? Further, perhaps we should bar the biological parents from having more children once it has been shown that their children get insulted at school and such?

Or how about this - the first black kids bussed to white schools unquestionably took a lot of abuse. Should they have been removed from their families, who allowed them to go to white schools, and given into the care of families who would protect them from abuse by only letting them associate with other black children?

So it is your contention, then, that interracial couples should not be allowed to adopt?



Tell that to any adopted child or their parents.



I agree. And there is nothing inherently unhealthy about having a gay couple as parents. Given the state of our foster care and orphanage systems, such a situation is actually much healthier than the alternative.

And let's be honest here, children are mistreated because of their parents all the time. Is one of the parents fat? Children may be mistreated. Are the parents members of a minority religion? Children may be mistreated. A minority race? A disliked job? And so on...

Are you going to argue that adoptive parents must be middle class WASPs with nothing that anyone might possibly dislike them for?

Maybe were you live homosexuals get mistreated. Were I live they cut their throats... Im not joking. I think it would be extreamly dangerous for the children.

Maybe were you live homosexuals get mistreated. Were I live they cut their throats... Im not joking. I think it would be extreamly dangerous for the children.

And where I live, they used to do that to people of the wrong race. They did it to interracial couples. They did it to people of the wrong religion.

What's your point?

You want to punish children and people who could make loving parents for the actions of other assholes. Why not punish the actual assholes who do such things? And punish them harshly, as a deterrent to other assholes?

And where I live, they used to do that to people of the wrong race. They did it to interracial couples. They did it to people of the wrong religion.

What's your point?

You want to punish children and people who could make loving parents for the actions of other assholes. Why not punish the actual assholes who do such things? And punish them harshly, as a deterrent to other assholes?

Let me tell you why. Although I think that in THEORY you are right, in PRACTICE I wouldnt put a children in such a dangerous situation.

HERE... a parent divorced from her wife and living with another guy was killed while he and his partner walked on the park with his children... all evidence seems to point it was the cops.

I believe gay marriage is as right as straight marriage. In a way, if you don't accept them, it's a form of discrimination against a group of people. I'm sure someone will bring the bible into this, so I'll just say that the bible also tells you to love all man right? Looking at the poll, I'm glad to see that more people are accepting of it. It's not like you have to be straight to support the GLBT Society. I mean look at me. Straight girl typing at the computer endlessly. I'll stop now.

Oh! Should they be allowed to have children, why yes I believe it wouldn't be bad or anything. You can't just turn GLBT because of your uprising.

Let me tell you why. Although I think that in THEORY you are right, in PRACTICE I wouldnt put a children in such a dangerous situation.

HERE... a parent divorced from her wife and living with another guy was killed while he and his partner walked on the park with his children... all evidence seems to point it was the cops.

And that's terrible - but it is unambiguously the fault of the killers, not the gay guys who dared to go out in public. I do think gay couples should consider carefully before choosing to adopt children whether they will be able to provide those children with a good life (and I think straight people should do the same), but in the end, the decision should absolutely be theirs, and for anyone to try to take that decision away simply justifies the behavior of the bigots and lays the blame for their behavior at someone else's feet.

In the same way, as a woman, I make a point of being careful when I go out alone at night. I don't get drunk alone, or walk home through secluded alleyways - but if I chose to do those things and got raped, it still wouldn't be in any way my fault, and it still wouldn't be appropriate for the government to mandate that women not get drunk in public or enter dark alleys without chaperones.

And that's terrible - but it is unambiguously the fault of the killers, not the gay guys who dared to go out in public. I do think gay couples should consider carefully before choosing to adopt children whether they will be able to provide those children with a good life (and I think straight people should do the same), but in the end, the decision should absolutely be theirs, and for anyone to try to take that decision away simply justifies the behavior of the bigots and lays the blame for their behavior at someone else's feet.

In the same way, as a woman, I make a point of being careful when I go out alone at night. I don't get drunk alone, or walk home through secluded alleyways - but if I chose to do those things and got raped, it still wouldn't be in any way my fault, and it still wouldn't be appropriate for the government to mandate that women not get drunk in public or enter dark alleys without chaperones.

Where I live senators have proposed to stop prosecution of rapers if they and the victim agree to marry. And some of them think its a good way to protect the women.

I think that it should be legal for gay couples to marry and adopt children. BUT the authorities should consider the posibility of violence in the community before allowing adoptions.

Where I live senators have proposed to stop prosecution of rapers if they and the victim agree to marry. And some of them think its a good way to protect the women.

That's....pretty awful, yup.

I think that it should be legal for gay couples to marry and adopt children. BUT the authorities should consider the posibility of violence in the community before allowing adoptions.

Well, it's hard to argue against "considering" anything, but I still feel that most of that considering should be done by the prospective parents, not the adoption agencies. If the parents honestly believe that they can give a child a safe and happy life, and there is no direct evidence to contradict that belief, I just don't think it's right for the parents' sexual orientation to be used as an excuse to deny them children. Essentially, I have no problem with advocating a given course of action to minimize one's risk, but I have a huge problem with mandating it.

That's....pretty awful, yup.



Well, it's hard to argue against "considering" anything, but I still feel that most of that considering should be done by the prospective parents, not the adoption agencies. If the parents honestly believe that they can give a child a safe and happy life, and there is no direct evidence to contradict that belief, I just don't think it's right for the parents' sexual orientation to be used as an excuse to deny them children. Essentially, I have no problem with advocating a given course of action to minimize one's risk, but I have a huge problem with mandating it.

Well this raises another problem. Most orphanages and adoption agencies here are religious funded.

Where I live senators have proposed to stop prosecution of rapers if they and the victim agree to marry. And some of them think its a good way to protect the women.

I think that it should be legal for gay couples to marry and adopt children. BUT the authorities should consider the posibility of violence in the community before allowing adoptions.
There will always be crime, no matter who you are, or where.

Yes... good luck with that...

And while we achieve that... we should put children in a position where they would be ostracized by the rest of society?

Maybe in places where people is more tolerant. But were I live give children to adoptive gay parents would be impossible. The population would make their lifes impossible.

If you try to wait for society, you'll be waiting forever. Seriously. Society does not generally become more tolerant on its own(not yet anyway. Hopefully in the future that will change.) Society must be made to become more tolerant by forcing the issue.

Will this cause some emotional distress to the children of gay adopters? Certainly. It's going to for a long time. But so be it. Eventually that will stop and society will happily accept gay adopters and homosexual couples raising children.

Until we force the issue, it's not going to change.