I have thought about this issue of gay marriages in an effort to understand what are the benefits and costs of marrying two people of the same sex.

The benefits would include:
- Legalizing, recognizing, and unifying two individuals in love who are parteners.
- Double income means better chance in buying houses, cars, ect.

The negatives and costs would include:
- Marriage penalty in taxation of gay couples.
- Inability to have pure biological offspring.
- Unknown roles in raising of children....who takes the mother role, and who takes the father role.
- Lack of sexual diversity, so the kids are exposed to different sexes and learn how the sexes should interact with respect.
Ect...

But what really confuses me is the issue of adoption or parenting for gay couples. While the marriage of a same sex couple may be innocent, parenting for a gay couple is a complex issue.

To examine the methods available for a gay couple to become parents:
1- Artificial insemination for lesbian couples.
2- A carrier and fertilizer mother for gay couples.
3- Adoption.

As far as artificial insemination is concerned, a potential hazard exist in destruction of geneology and understanding of ancestary of the child. This means a child have no idea what are their diseace risk, family health, race, ect.....In addition, that child may marry a sister or a cousin without knowing. In addition, the child will always have the permanent question of who are my biological parents?.

A carrier of fertilizer mother leaves many problems as well. First, only one of the gay guys could be the father, meaning, the other partner is not really a biological father. This can cause jealousy, differential treatment, and could eventually lead to a messy court battle on child custody.

Adoption poses all the problems stated above.

Of course, once a gay marriage is legalized, one would expect the number of gay people to increase and their desire to marry one another to increase. The next generation born into a gay marriage would be more likely to become gay than an average person born into a straight marriage. This means that the numbers of unnatural birthes in our societies will increase, thus increasing the risk of geneology destruction and inbreeding.

Any thoughts on this?

I think they are some inherent flaws in your argument:

1. The percentage of gays will never be so large(relatively of course) as to affect the population in such a drastic manner

2. As with adoption, in cases of artificial insemination, the medical history of the donor is increasingly, though gradually, becoming available as the importance one's medical history gains acceptance amongst the commonality.

3. The determination of 'race' will never be a problem

4. There is no increase, percentage-wise, in the number of gays. Any observable increase will be in the amount of openly gay, or individuals who embrace that lifestyle. In ancient attica, homosexuality was prevalent and the effect on genealogy was minimal. The reason was simply because it was accepted and a homosexual could and would marry a female and have children. Once homosexuality is accepted, male homosexuals will seek a female partner to inseminate; female homosexuals are already a step ahead.

5. The social roles of a 'father' or 'mother' are easily adaptable with a homosexual couple as they mimick the interelational dependencies of heterosexuals-- by virtue of being products of the same society/culture.

6. Adoption has always been part of human history.

7. You forget a likely benefit: population decrease.

What must be fully understood is the impact gay parenting has on a child. Being raised in a household that has two male parents and no females is obviously very different from heterosexual parenting. The child may lack maturity in social relationships with women later on in life, but such things can never be conclusively proven unless they're studied in depth.

As far as inability to have pure biological offspring goes, if both the parents are willing to compromise there should be no real problem. However, as you said - if the issue of divorce comes up; who can lay greater claim on the child? - the biological parent, or the other parent?

Of course, once a gay marriage is legalized, one would expect the number of gay people to increase and their desire to marry one another to increase. The next generation born into a gay marriage would be more likely to become gay than an average person born into a straight marriage. This means that the numbers of unnatural birthes in our societies will increase, thus increasing the risk of geneology destruction and inbreeding.

Many gay people wouldn't marry even if such a marriage was legalized. It is true that a child born into a gay household may stand greater chance of turning gay himself/herself; but again - only if it is studied in depth can it be understood. The number of gay people has to undergo a dramatic increase for it to make any severe and marked impact on society.

i guess that's their problem then huh. all those problems you foresee already exist in some form for hetero people but again, not your problem.

i guess my extreme willingness to extend marriage to gay couples, aside from the intrinsic justice of it, stems from how i see marriage at work for every single person i know. my parents are 1 male, 1 female yet they hate each other. they're the two most miserable people i've ever met. they stayed married "for the kids" but that only screwed us up and we ended up hating them both. they are unusual because most of my friends' parents are divorced. i know probably two successful hetero marriages. people my age getting married immediately complain about how their role has changed since getting married. one girl is on the phone with her mom daily complaining about how she has to do all his laundry and cooking and cleaning while he's off at grad school, yet she also has to do her own homework cause she's in grad school too.

homo- couples on the other hand have to really want it. it's not the expected event once you reach your twenties like it is for hetero people. they are not forced into it by social construct. every homo couple i've ever met who has made the effort to be a monogomous domestic couple has been utterly sickeningly beautifully in love. love. where do i ever see love in hetero marriages? come to think of it, there is only one married couple i can think of that loves each other: one of my neighbors...but their daughter is screwed up anyway and likely to be pregnant within the year.

then there is the problem of children. it's easy for a hetero woman to get knocked up. my mom couldn't leave my dad cause she ended up pregnant. it's also expected of hetero people to do because their parents pressure them into it if it doesn't happen by accident.

but a homo couple has to really want children to make it happen. people who so very want to have a kid are the kind of people you want having kids. they're the most likely to provide a happy loving home for their children rich in family values (hate is not a family value!!!) like love and acceptance and understanding. they have to make an effort to make sure the children have both male and female adult role models while many hetero situations are missing one parent or one is never around for the kids. (ex. my dad going to work in the morning and coming home at night, ignoring the kids as if we didn't exist then doing it all again the next day.) what i mean is, nothing is taken for granted. it has to be thought about so nothing gets missed.

these are the kinds of relationships that could provide a good example to hetero couples of what a marriage should be. not obligation but a loving commitment.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
i guess that's their problem then huh. all those problems you foresee already exist in some form for hetero people but again, not your problem.

Let me tell you something honey, most gay/lesbian relationship starts from two main reasons:
1- These people are inept to face the other sex, they are too afraid and prefer to deal with the same sex or school enteem, because it's easier and lacks the intimidation and challenge of working out with the other sex.
2- These people are taking the easy way out in concealing their sexual relationship. Who would suspect that two teenage girls or boys entering the Gym bathroom or their house could be doing anything wrong.

A proactive prudent person is one that forsee a problem and avoids it. A drastic social change in a society is likely to impact us all in ways that you could never imagine.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
i guess my extreme willingness to extend marriage to gay couples, aside from the intrinsic justice of it, stems from how i see marriage at work for every single person i know. my parents are 1 male, 1 female yet they hate each other. they're the two most miserable people i've ever met. they stayed married "for the kids" but that only screwed us up and we ended up hating them both. they are unusual because most of my friends' parents are divorced. i know probably two successful hetero marriages. people my age getting married immediately complain about how their role has changed since getting married. one girl is on the phone with her mom daily complaining about how she has to do all his laundry and cooking and cleaning while he's off at grad school, yet she also has to do her own homework cause she's in grad school too.


Swedishfish, your examples really do suck. A person who is miserable in a relationship is a miserable person. Misery seeks company and hence you got your parents and your miserable friends. These people will remain miserable in a gay marriage and it have nothing to do with the merit of the straight/gay marriage.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
homo- couples on the other hand have to really want it.


I have never heard of a straight couple that really didn't want to plan that big grant wedding for 50,000.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
it's not the expected event once you reach your twenties like it is for hetero people. they are not forced into it by social construct.


Social construct isn't pushing anybody. I have many respectfull friends in their thirties and fourties who are happy to be single and won't have it any other way.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
every homo couple i've ever met who has made the effort to be a monogomous domestic couple has been utterly sickeningly beautifully in love.


How do you know. Did you knock on their hearts, entered and found love. How do you judge love? By their number of visits to the bar that you're a regular at. How the hell do you know about the intimate secrets and feeling in someone elses relationship.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
love. where do i ever see love in hetero marriages?


I for one, would die for my husband. I love him more than life. I adore him for loving me and wanting the best for me in ways more than my own father wanted for me. He typed my Master dissertation and changed my diaper pads full of blood after I had the baby because I couldn't move. There is nothing he wouldn't do for me and me for him.... Are you puking yet???, or do you prefer to listen to gay love stories and that's why you seem so prejudice in your discussions on this subject.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
come to think of it, there is only one married couple i can think of that loves each other: one of my neighbors...but their daughter is screwed up anyway and likely to be pregnant within the year.


Where the hell do you live??? Must be some northern European countries where scuicide rates are exceeding birth rates. Move to a hoter climate, you might just see some love.


Originally posted by SwedishFish
then there is the problem of children. it's easy for a hetero woman to get knocked up.

Excatly, homosexuals fear responsbility and lacks prudence. They want the easy way out. So let's all fuck now with no string attached, for their is no babies to worry about, just AIDS.
Are you suggesting that we all turn gay now so we don't concieve anymore? Do you have any sense of personal responsbility or are we all supposed to be sheap here.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
my mom couldn't leave my dad cause she ended up pregnant. it's also expected of hetero people to do because their parents pressure them into it if it doesn't happen by accident.


Again, your horrific life experiences is influencing the reason unit in your brain. Move out of your infested environment, there's more to life than gay bars, divorces, women getting knocked up, booze, sex, and drugs.


Originally posted by SwedishFish
these are the kinds of relationships that could provide a good example to hetero couples of what a marriage should be. not obligation but a loving commitment.

The last thing that I would refer to for advice on relationship is a gay couple. I prefer straight behavior where I know how to respect my fellow woman and befriend her properly without thinking that all she think about me is my sexuality and knowing how to love fellow man as husband, coworker, neighbor, ect. Anyother way is demented and screwed up.

Lesbian and Gay Parents

One belief that often underlies both judicial decision-making in custody litigation and public policies governing foster care and adoption has been the belief that lesbians and gay men are not fit to be parents. In particular, courts have sometimes assumed that gay men and lesbians are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with sexual partners leave little time for ongoing parent-child interactions (Editors of the Harvard Law Review, 1990). Results of research to date have failed to confirm any of these beliefs (Falk, 1989, 1994; Patterson, 1994b, 1995b, 1996).

Mental Health of Lesbians and Gay Men

The psychiatric, psychological, and social-work professions do not consider homosexual orientation to be a mental disorder. More than 20 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality" from its list of mental disorders, stating that "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities" (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). In 1975, the

American Psychological Association took the same position and urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that had long been associated with homosexual orientation (American Psychological Association, 1975). The National Association of Social Workers has a similar policy (National Association of Social Workers, 1994).

The decision to remove homosexual orientation from the list of mental disorders reflects the results of extensive research, conducted over three decades, showing that homosexual orientation is not a psychological maladjustment (Gonsiorek, 1991; Reiss, 1980; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston, & McKee, 1978). The social and other circumstances in which lesbians and gay men live, including exposure to widespread prejudice and discrimination, often cause acute distress; but there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning (Freedman, 1971; Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart et al., 1978; Hooker, 1957; Reiss, 1980).

Source: APA Research Summary on Lesbian and Gay Parenting (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html?CFID=2138374&CFTOKEN=77644511)

Curses! Flores has uncovered our plot to ruin pretty family tree pictures, and cause inbreeding (Which can only be prevented via looking at these pictures) I guess we will have to come up with another evil agenda.... maybe we can redirect rivers through major citys or something.

Originally posted by SpyMoose
... maybe we can redirect rivers through major citys or something.

I'll take credits for that one, I design stormdrain systems and major culverts.

Flores,

Let me tell you something honey, most gay/lesbian relationship starts from two main reasons:
1- These people are inept to face the other sex, they are too afraid and prefer to deal with the same sex or school enteem, because it's easier and lacks the intimidation and challenge of working out with the other sex.
Ah, this you measured how? Please, i do hope you have some conclusive research that points out that homosexuals make a concious choice to avoid the opposite sex out of fear of confronting them...

Misery seeks company and hence you got your parents and your miserable friends
You conclude a to you otherwise completely unknown domestic situation to "Misery seeks company and hence...". You do not find this an extraordinary simplistic view?

Social construct isn't pushing anybody.
Yes it does. It pushes homosexuals not to marry.

How do you know. Did you knock on their hearts, entered and found love. How do you judge love? (snip) How the hell do you know about the intimate secrets and feeling in someone elses relationship.
How do you know the motivations of a group of people? How can you easily categorize a certain segment of the population as being afraid of the opposite sex?

Excatly, homosexuals fear responsbility and lacks prudence. They want the easy way out. So let's all fuck now with no string attached, for their is no babies to worry about, just AIDS.
Please, proof to me that homosexuals fear responsibility. Do they live more recklessly? Are they more likely to put their fellow human in danger? Moreover, if you fear that they are irresponsible beings who do nothing more than living a wild life, what makes you think that they would like to adopt and raise children or would like to have the choice to spent a life time with a partner? Wouldn't that be a direct contradiction with the loose lifestyle and unmoral character you seem so eager to attribute to them? We can assume that it is clear to everyone that getting married and raising (adopted) children is not the easy way out.

I prefer straight behavior where I know how to respect my fellow woman and befriend her properly without thinking that all she think about me is my sexuality
Yes, that frightens you, doesn't it? You would like to have the world in simple and concrete terms so that you can cope with it, wouldn't you?


Anyother way is demented and screwed up.
In your opinion.

edit: typos and deleted unconstructive sarcasm

Originally posted by Flores
Let me tell you something honey, most gay/lesbian relationship starts from two main reasons:
1- These people are inept to face the other sex, they are too afraid and prefer to deal with the same sex or school enteem, because it's easier and lacks the intimidation and challenge of working out with the other sex.

Hahaha, Flores you crack me up! Seriously, you should go on some sort of comedy tour with this material.

Do you honestly think that homosexuals end up being with members of the same sex because they can't get members of the opposite sex? It's completely absurd. Why is it that gay guys get all the chicks? haha, why does gay porn exist, wouldn't they much rather look at members of the opposite sex? How is it that Gay people can have great friendships with heterosexuals of the opposite sex? You're just making this all up as you go along, aren't you?


Originally posted by Flores
2- These people are taking the easy way out in concealing their sexual relationship. Who would suspect that two teenage girls or boys entering the Gym bathroom or their house could be doing anything wrong.

Well if you're suggesting that they are homosexuals, then they aren't doing anything wrong :p

Anyway I have no idea what the hell you are talking about here. you are listing this as one of two ways that in your crazy little world you feel homosexual relationships get started. . . but I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say here. you're going to have to be much more clear, dear. I'm guessing that the problem is that you don't have a fucking clue either.

Originally posted by Flores
A proactive prudent person is one that forsee a problem and avoids it. A drastic social change in a society is likely to impact us all in ways that you could never imagine.

So now your argument is that the sky is falling? If we allow homosexual marriages, then by this time next year we'll all be eaten by bears? If a prudent person can forsee a problem and avoid it, then you've shown that you aren't a prudent person, you havn't forseen a problem. All you're doing here is running around shouting that the sky is falling.


Originally posted by Flores
I have never heard of a straight couple that really didn't want to plan that big grant wedding for 50,000.

Forgive me for this painfully obvious observation, but Swedish fish wasn't talking about planning out a marriage ceremony, he was talking about planning a working relationship, and creating a working and positive family environment. [completely irrational generalization characteristic of Flores]There's a big difference between planning something like that, and planning some big hedonistic party, but I guess that's all that heterosexuals care about anyway. [/completely irrational generalization characteristic of Flores



Originally posted by Flores
Social construct isn't pushing anybody. I have many respectfull friends in their thirties and fourties who are happy to be single and won't have it any other way.

So, now you are trying to assert that traditional values have absolutely no bearing on society or how people live their lives? Then why, oh wise Flores, are you even bothering to argue against homosexual marriage?


Originally posted by Flores
I for one, would die for my husband.

Please do!



Originally posted by Flores
Where the hell do you live??? Must be some northern European countries where scuicide rates are exceeding birth rates. Move to a hoter climate, you might just see some love.

Ahh yes, because lord knows that America's 50% divorce rate is such a big improvement. Yeah, we really know how to make people love each other over here.


Originally posted by Flores
Excatly, homosexuals fear responsbility and lacks prudence. They want the easy way out. So let's all fuck now with no string attached, for their is no babies to worry about, just AIDS.

Yet another example of those wild and irrational generalizations I made fun of you for earlier. How can you possibly paint all homosexuals with the same brush like that? You don't even have any concept of who you are talking about, you've just turned homosexuals into this imaginary enemy for yourself to hate. It makes you sound like a bitter and stupid old woman. It’s not flattering, just don’t do it!

Originally posted by Flores
Are you suggesting that we all turn gay now so we don't concieve anymore? Do you have any sense of personal responsbility or are we all supposed to be sheap here.

You know, Flores, that is the homosexual agenda after all. We want everyone to turn gay, that's why we are so evangelical, and set up missions to convert poor misguided heterosexuals.

No one has ever seriously made an argument for trying in some way to make heterosexuals gay (the idea is just absurd). Homosexuals aren't preaching that heterosexuality is wrong or a disease, we don't try to say that you don't have a right to your own sexual orientation. It only works the other way around, but if you were genuinely concerned that someone was suggesting that you should turn gay try to remember how that made you feel, and then maybe you'll get a better understanding of exactly what you are trying to do with every word you vomit forth on this subject.


Originally posted by Flores
Move out of your infested environment, there's more to life than gay bars, divorces, women getting knocked up, booze, sex, and drugs.

Well, this has never worked with you, before, but I'm going to ask that you apologies, again. You made wild and hate filled assumptions about Swedish Fish, and that's just not fair. He hasn't once mentioned anything about booze, sex or drugs, but again you have to go off the deep end, completely lose touch with reality and turn him into this imaginary stereotype for you to hate.


Originally posted by Flores
The last thing that I would refer to for advice on relationship is a gay couple. I prefer straight behavior where I know how to respect my fellow woman and befriend her properly without thinking that all she think about me is my sexuality and knowing how to love fellow man as husband, coworker, neighbor, ect. Anyother way is demented and screwed up.

Well, maybe that's how it is in the imaginary world you've built for yourself, but if you ever care to join us here in reality I'm sure you'll see that this just isn't the case.

I would argue against Flores, but you all seem to be doing a good job. carry on.

whoa flores, not that your arguments would have merit anyway, but the big flaw is what "causes" homosexuality. there is overwhelming scientific evidence that gay people are born gay. no self respecting scientist would ignore that data in favor of their ancient religious beliefs. it would be a sad sad thing for a person to pretend to be gay. almost as sad as a gay person pretending to be straight.

*digression: i never quite understood this. if sexuality is a choice, than theoretically any of us could be gay including the straight person saying that it is a choice. so straight people, is it possible for you to be gay?*

i don't hang out at bars, i've never been to a gay bar in my life. i have close personal friendships with many gay people. they are not mentally ill except for a couple who have had to deal with non acceptance which of course is very hurtful and damaging. my closest dearest friend in the world is from portugal. her parents were raised on a portuguese farm and never made it past 4th grade. they don't understand what homosexuality is so she was never able to explain it to them. she doesn't even know if there is a word in portuguese for it. she says she's known since she was a very little girl that she liked other girls and not boys. she thought she was going to grow up to be a nun so she wouldn't have to get married to a man before she found out that there were other people like her and it was ok to love people of the same sex. but it's terribly sad that her parents think she is straight. her dad having lived in the country for several years now and watching his daughter grow up is finally getting the picture but her grandma keeps asking when she's getting married (to a man). if she ever does get married (probably in canada) i'm going to be her best man/maid. there was a time she tried pretending to be straight and had several boyfriends, so she never had any trouble with the opposite sex. she just isn't attracted to them.

Originally posted by SwedishFish
whoa flores, not that your arguments would have merit anyway, but the big flaw is what "causes" homosexuality. there is overwhelming scientific evidence that gay people are born gay.

Swedishfish, I'm talking from a personal experience. You said yourself that playing doctor is part of growing up..... So why do we need a scientific resport to confirm a certain Gene, ect...while all we have to do is look outselves and ask ourselves, and put each others in the other shoes. I tell you that your first good experiences with sex is bound to establish your sexuality. SOme of you may say, what proof to you have for that statement. But really think about it with some common sense. If a gay person is having a good experience having sex with a woman then what is his motivation for having sex with a man. The only conclusion is that a gay person doesn't like to have sex with a woman because he either had a personal bad experience or he have seen too many negative implications to sex with women growing up. Let's say for example that I slept first with this horrible man that doesn't know how to touch a lady right. He hurt me, he didn't please me, it was disgusting...Next, I had sex with SwedishFish, she was considerate, loving, touched me correctly, showed me all about my sexuality, taught me how to enjoy sex, then how do you think I'll turn out to be.....I'll be a lesbian of course and it doesn't matter what I was born into and what is my gene makeup. Sex with the opposite sex is hard in the beginning, it's not that pretty and it could be painfull.....afterall, it's two people with opposite poles when it comes to sexual pleasure. I said before that sex with a woman is a violation. A man enters the woman body. Some sensitive men souls don't pleasure from such violation and feel as if they're hurting their partener, this within itself is a sex turn off for many men and a justification for becoming gay. Also, men and women sexual pleasures are quite different. One likes to be stimulated this way and the other like to supress their stimulation by doing that....It's almost like machine gears, one turn in one direction while the otherone goes the opposite. It takes time for opposite sexes to understand one another and get in the groove....We don't call them opposite sexes from thin air.

Tell me about your first sex with a man and dare tell me it was beautifull. He broke my hymn, I hurt, I bled. I couldn't bare sex after that, at least that night, somehow he's still horny and he's moving inside of me while I'm hurting. I don't want to embarass him and hate to pain him and ask him to stop. He was heavy and sweaty....What the hell, don't you think experiences like that would turn any woman off sex. At the same time, I'm sure he have sensed that every muscle in my body was tight that I didn't enjoy this, that I held back, ect....Don't you think that would affect a man and cause him to think that his sex with a woman is not all that it should be, without inhibition. I still stuck around though and the next time was better, the third time was actually enjoyable. I didn't discover that I could orgasm until my tenth time.

This is in my view the main reason that leads to homosexuality...Lack of patience and inability to understand and deal with the opposite sex....Period. What is my proof, it's the pudding of it.

Since the fountainhed stayed purely with the issues presented in the first post, I'll use him as a crow bar to bring this discussion back to topic

Originally posted by thefountainhed
I think they are some inherent flaws in your argument:
1. The percentage of gays will never be so large(relatively of course) as to affect the population in such a drastic manner

I expect the number of gays/lesbians to increase drastically after marriage legalization in a country like the US for many reasons.

1- Marriage is the key to many people's freedom and first step toward independance. Many elect to marry as young as highschool graduation to escape a turmoil homes or financial pressures that parents exert on children on that age. The biggest challenge and deterent for marriage at this age, is fear of having children and the guys fear of inability to take care of a weaker sex. A gay marriage would present a simple solution out of these mess. First, children are not an issue to deter a couple from uniting forces, second, a boy wouldn't fear the mountain responsbility of caring for a weakly female, afterall, he is marrying his equivalent counterpart. There is no conditions on types of jobs that could be undertaken, i.e., they can both work in construction and pull nice $20.00 an hour, ect.

2- Just like politics, you have republican, democrates, and independants. Marriage is the same way. You have those who are confident that the way to be is straight, others who are confident that the way to be is gay, a minority, and another majority of independants who really don't think about this issue and may end up singles in the future. It's those independant sections of our society that may sway into the gay section if a behavior like that was embrassed by the government as legal. This will increase the populations of gay.

3- The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays. If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial. Overtime, the gay population would increase.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
As with adoption, in cases of artificial insemination, the medical history of the donor is increasingly, though gradually, becoming available as the importance one's medical history gains acceptance amongst the commonality.

Really, does a child who is artificially inseminated have direct access to his sisters, brothers, father, mother, cousins, ect...just in case he need a marrow, kidney, blood, ect...transplant. How much does this child know about his family history. Does he know of his grandpa who was epileptic, or his sisters and brothers that developed cancer, or his father that died from heart attack that he didn't know off when he donated the sperms.

Be real please, there's an extent to debating and you're surpassing it with your assertions here.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
3. The determination of 'race' will never be a problem

Really, you must not have heard of the white couple that used artificial insemination in MD that was said to be from a white donor and ended up having a black baby. The white donor had a black ancester that he didn't feel the need to report.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
5. The social roles of a 'father' or 'mother' are easily adaptable with a homosexual couple as they mimick the interelational dependencies of heterosexuals-- by virtue of being products of the same society/culture.

So one of them grow tits to breast feed the baby, while the other one grows a moustache and a beard to teach the baby how to shave. How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
6. Adoption has always been part of human history.

A wrongly applied option. While adoption seem to be a noble cause, it carries many risks and problems. In my view, an adoptive parents should be allowed to perform their charity within the context of being adoptive. The child should know that they are adopted, they should keep their original names they were found with, and they shouldn't be treated as equals in inheritance, ect...to the biological children. An adoptive child should never be lied to from the very start or misled to believe that he is a biological son/daughter to the adoptive family.
7. You forget a likely benefit: population decrease.

you're not making any sense. you've made up this ridiculous scenario that is simply not true. sorry, your opinions are just not science. how could a straight woman possibly know why another woman is gay, why a straight man is straight or why a gay man is gay from *her own* personal experience? you just can't. there are brain maps, genetic pedigrees, hormonal studies showing quite matter-of-factly the exact opposite of that silly theory of yours.

if we're going to base the lives of other people on personal experience, i can tell you what i know about my gay friends. most have known since they were very small children and just about all before they had ever had any sexual contact.
i have a (different) lesbian friend who has two gay aunts and other suspected but deep in the closet family members. they're a "traditional" catholic family so they'd die before telling anyone.
i knew i liked boys when i was a little child and no one had to tell me whether or not i was supposed to.

Swedishfish,
You never answered my question of why does a person become gay if their straight experiece was good? and If their experience was bad, couldn't that be merely a function of the experience or the partener they had?

Please just debate that issue.

Flores,

I'm pretty curious- just how many homosexuals have you personally talked with and taken the time to get know and understand them as a person?

I've read your posts regarding homosexuals, and Flores you couldn't be further from the truth. You can say the proof is in the pudding...but, that would be YOUR pudding.

Let me ask you this..prior to having your first sexual encounter, were you attracted to men and women?
I, for one, was attracted to women- not men and that was PRIOR to any sort of sexual contact whatsoever.

Now I must point out to you that because I wanted to please my parents, I tried very very hard to be straight. So hard that I got married. I loved him as a friend, but I couldn't stand having intimacy with him. Not because he was rough or a bad lover etc... but, because for me it was 100% unnatural. Needless to say, I got divorced.

Think of it like this. The majority of people are born right-handed and minority being left-handed.
It used to be long ago that the left-handed people were thought to be evil people and were persecuted and killed just for being left-handed. As time went on in the early 1900's lefthanders were forced to write with their right hand- sometimes they tied their left arm so it couldn't be used.

Now they advise it is better to allow for nautral handedness.

What is natural for you can be unnatural for another- but, one should not be superior over the other.

As far as the pros and cons, don't you think it should be left up each homosexual couple to decide...just as any heterosexual couple has a right. (see we are are not wanting special rights here...just the very same rights as heterosexuals have)

Flores,

1- Marriage is the key to many people's freedom and first step toward independance.
No, moving out of the parental house is. Perhaps in your part of the world this is synonymous with marriage, in other parts it certainly is not.

Many elect to marry as young as highschool graduation to escape a turmoil homes or financial pressures that parents exert on children on that age.
I'd say that in this day and age the majority of marriages is certainly not during teen years. Again, of course, i am referring to the situation i know best: Western Europe. I, of course, have no clue of your local situation.

The biggest challenge and deterent for marriage at this age, is fear of having children and the guys fear of inability to take care of a weaker sex.
With contraceptives out of the tabboo sphere and widely available, the number of teenage parents is dropping. So you see, the fear for having children is generally not present in most young heterosexual couples, as they know how to prevent it from happening.

When i married my wife, we promised that the burdens and joys are equally shared. Financially and otherwise. This seems to be the standard here - we do not consider a female partner to be more weaker or stronger than her male. Sure, there is inequality in the job market. You see but a few female truck drivers and you see but a few little male waiters or hairdressers. In general, i think it evens out and both sexes can make a very decent living without being dependent on the other. Women are entitled to pregnancy leave and continuation of pay or government subsidy.

On the topic of "the first time" and how this could scare from males having sex with females - i suspect that usually the female is under more pain than a male during a first time. If your theory would be valid, i would expect a much higher rate of female homosexuals rather than male homosexuals. On top of that, if you realise that homosexual sex between two males, if done improperly e.g. due to lack of experience, can just as well end up in an unpleasurable experience for one or both partners you can see that the same barrier would apply for male-male unions.

2- Just like politics, you have republican, democrates, and independants. Marriage is the same way. You have those who are confident that the way to be is straight, others who are confident that the way to be is gay, a minority, and another majority of independants who really don't think about this issue and may end up singles in the future.
People who are not convinced of their own sexuality? Usually everyone has a pretty good idea about their preferences.

It's those independant sections of our society that may sway into the gay section if a behavior like that was embrassed by the government as legal.
I could imagine that some bi-sexuals would choose for the homosexual union option. This would not increase the number of gays, though. It remains exactly equal.

3- The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays.
Why?

If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial.
I do ask for proof. If you have none to give, so be it. But how can you expect me to accept your statements just on face value?

Overtime, the gay population would increase.
Your argument holds or falls by your statement that people choose to be homosexuals to avoid a confrontation with the opposite sex. Interesting hypothesis, but i do not think it works like that.

First of all, as i explained above, the fear of having children is not that present in at least the society i was raised in.

Secondly, the notion that having sex with a member of the opposite sex can be a discouraging experience is valid for male-male sex as well as female-male sex. If people regarded this as a major factor in establishing their preference, i would have expected to see significantly more female-female homosexuals than male-male homosexuals.

Thirdly, observation has led me to believe otherwise. E.g. i discovered my heterosexuality when i was five or six years old. I did not think of responsibilities, of a weaker sex or of children... i just found myself attracted to females. No conscious choice. From discussions with homosexuals it seemed to me that they had a similar experience with of course the difference that they prefer the same sex.

"It's those independant sections of our society that may sway into the gay section if a behavior like that was embrassed by the government as legal. This will increase the populations of gay."

Whereas the probably most appropirate way of looking at it is like a continuum between heterosexual at one and and homosexual at the other, and there are some peopel on the bisexual area of it. One of my friends is bisexual, but now has a boyfriend and is faithful to him. Would you say she has been converted to heterosexuality, or is sex not necessarily connected to love?
And you also need to demonstrate that people currently thought of as heterosexaul will suddenly think, "oh great, homosexuality is alright, i'll give it a go."

"The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays. If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial. Overtime, the gay population would increase."

You have what data on this? Go on, bring us some numbers, some respectabel surveys, some PROOF! YOu dont expect us to believe you without some proof do you? And how are we in denial for asking for proof? We're just being fair and even handed and scientific.

"Really, does a child who is artificially inseminated have direct access to his sisters, brothers, father, mother, cousins, ect...just in case he need a marrow, kidney, blood, ect...transplant. How much does this child know about his family history. Does he know of his grandpa who was epileptic, or his sisters and brothers that developed cancer, or his father that died from heart attack that he didn't know off when he donated the sperms."

And your point is? We have had adoption for centuries, usually with the concommitent lack of knowledge of ancestors, and it hasnt apaprently hurt many people yet. Can you give us some urls to info on it?

"Really, you must not have heard of the white couple that used artificial insemination in MD that was said to be from a white donor and ended up having a black baby. The white donor had a black ancester that he didn't feel the need to report."

And? A mistake was made in a case like that in the UK, maybe the same one you were thinking of, except it was a pure or nearly so negro and white couple. How does this matter to the debate abuot how homosexual marriages would destroy genealogy and lead to inbreeding?

"So one of them grow tits to breast feed the baby, while the other one grows a moustache and a beard to teach the baby how to shave. How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians."

Thats about the most sensible thing youve said so far. I'd like to say i have a perfect answer, but in fact the situations will likely end up like when you have single parent families, eg when one spouse dies. They rely on friends and relatives. Its real life, its messy, live with it.

Flores -

Regarding gender role models in raising children. First off, I think you associate way too much with gender identity. Secondly, in terms of what can reasonably be associated with gender identity (eg menstruation), it appears you assert that such children would be raised in a bubble. Yes, this would be a problem for a couple raising a child in the wilderness without outside contact, but any social problems that result would be more directly attributed to a general lack of outside contacts. A healthy individual, regardless of the gender of their primary guardians, has a wide variety of examples to learn from. This is why we have communities.

Regarding medical data of adopted and artificially inseminated offspring. The issues you bring up have more to do with disclosure of information than the sexual orientation of the parents. I agree that these are issues which need to be addressed, but if you believe this is reason homosexual couples should not be allowed children, you are sorely mistaken.

Regarding the "proof-denial" comment. I'll risk beating a dead horse on this one. That argument has no more merit than "I'm from Mars. If you want
proof, you're in denial."

Heart -
Semi-off-topic. Historically, the practice of killing left-handers was far less common even before 1900 than was the practice of forcing them to use their right hand. Feudal Japan is an example that comes to mind, where wearing a sword on your right hip was a sign that you weren't going to draw it. Just a little tidbit.

Originally posted by Flores
Swedishfish,
You never answered my question of why does a person become gay if their straight experiece was good? and If their experience was bad, couldn't that be merely a function of the experience or the partener they had?

Please just debate that issue.

i didn't see that you had asked a question or i would have answered.

um, i don't know maybe because they were gay to begin with? but i don't know why you're asking me this question in the first place. my position is the same as the scientific community's: it has zip to do with sexual experience. your "common sense" is bologna and not common sense to anyone else. you cannot honestly claim that your gut feeling on the issue overrides all the concrete data collected on it.

personal question here: were you unsure of your sexuality before you ever had sex?
prediction: most people know their sexuality and are secure in it early on in life, before sex ever comes up.

In many cases, though, I would describe it as "searching for the right fit." Hence, college experimentation, people who have long-term heterosexual relationships before realizing they aren't straight. I would assert that the underlying issue in these cases has more to do with self-awareness than "switching teams," as it were.

Originally posted by Flores
I tell you that your first good experiences with sex is bound to establish your sexuality.

Haha, this is just ridiculous. How does this model of yours account for the vast majority of people who are pretty damn certain of their sexual orientation before they ever even have a sexual encounter? In your opinion is someone who has never had sex completely asexual, and it is only after having had sex with someone that they chose a sexual orientation? What about people like me? I had a girl-friend in high-school, and though we never actually did the deed, we did just about everything short of it, and I have to say she was very fun to fool around with, however the first time I had sex with a guy he was just awful, fumbling and selfish, and generally just not too damn satisfying, yet still somehow I'm gay.

Lets just say this, if you were two years old and you heard how bad woman are and cute men are your subconxious would eventually influence your sexual preference.

Sexually abused children usually end up sexually abnormal. Your experiences, not only sexual, have something to do with your sexual orientation.

But is that true in all cases especially whatever you are trying ot insinuate about homosexuality, Okinrus?

<i>But is that true in all cases especially whatever you are trying ot insinuate about homosexuality, Okinrus?</i>
I'm not insinuating anything. Is it true in all cases? Well no, no more than all murderers were abused. It's complicated and involves sexual abuse, parenthood, school, media etc.

Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not insinuating anything.

except that homosexuality is the result of abuse or trauma and is a mental illness. Okinrus, plese dont say things like "Im not insinuating anything" and then procede to insinuate things up the ying yang. Its nothing but inflamitory, and probably only works on people who arnt paying any attention at all.

except that homosexuality is the result of abuse or trauma and is a mental illness.

Did I even mention homosexuality in any of my two posts? No I just said sexually abnormal. Since when did it become some sort of crime to think that homosexuality is abnormal behavior anyways? I'm not being inflamitory. I'm corrrecting obvious mistakes such as believing that environment has no role in sexual behavior.

Okinrus, you posted that on a thread about homosexuality, ergo it will likely be taken as germane to the topic on hand, ie homosexuality. If you cant see that, you shouldnt be posting.

"I'm corrrecting obvious mistakes such as believing that environment has no role in sexual behavior."

But how much? the evidence seems to be that for most practising "full time" homosexuals it has very little. Now, there are peopel who experiment, and people who get turned on by a lot of different things, and fetishists who like the first thing they got off with, but what i ahev read, talked about and seen says that most homosexuals its inborn. I am assuming you are talking about the environment after birth here.

that's what i took it to mean too.

i don't exactly see the behavior that results from being abused as sexual in nature much like rape is not a sex crime. nor is homosexuality entirely about sex.

Flores:
First, children are not an issue to deter a couple from uniting forces, second, a boy wouldn't fear the mountain responsbility of caring for a weakly female, afterall, he is marrying his equivalent counterpart. There is no conditions on types of jobs that could be undertaken, i.e., they can both work in construction and pull nice $20.00 an hour, ect.

Weaker? Obviously you've never seen how men handle pain.
In any case, why would I (hetero) want to be cared for? If I can't pull my own weight, toss me out on the tundra. If I can, it's not an issue.
I'm not a whore. You may be, but not all women are willing to enter into relationships simply to be "cared for".
Not that I'm criticizing you - there's nothing wrong with sex work - but simply pointing out that not everyone shares your view.

The second and third generation children resulting from gay marriages are more likely to become gays. If you ask for proof to this, then you're in denial. Overtime, the gay population would increase.

Fallacious.
In any case, gays are useful - they'll decrease population. So more gays = less people = good.

So one of them grow tits to breast feed the baby, while the other one grows a moustache and a beard to teach the baby how to shave. How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians.

Same way I learned when my single mother was too busy doing other things - I read. Of course, friends and relatives could also be a factor.

"How does a little girl knows about her period and bikini waxes from a gay couple, and how do a little boy learn about being a man from two lesbians."

well geez, as if every family is sitcom perfect. a family on my block lost their mother when they were young. the single daughter was never told about her period and thought she was dying until she sobbingly went to her father to tell him the news. that's when he realized he'd forgotten something and told her all about it. she didn't die and turned out ok. the problems you invent already exist but a homo- couple is more likely to meet them head on.

*just a personal opinion here but perhaps the little boy is better off not learning to "be a man" (grrrr ::flexes muscles:: :: punches some bitches:: ), regardless of who is raising him

**whoa whoa wait a second. you talk with your mother about bikini waxes? fo real yo?

heyya all :)

quote
Flores
I tell you that your first good experiences with sex is bound to establish your sexuality. SOme of you may say, what proof to you have for that statement. But really think about it with some common sense
---
there is recent and equal gender data that contradicts that to the range of a 70-80% rate of the first instance being somewhat nearer to a homosexual construct
most likely based on those in the environment at the first sexual experience

i think the data needs some more cross study done to accurately represent the closer norm

however it is seen as quite refreshing for the profesional community/psychology people/medical
because understanding the way people develop is the key rather than what they might choose to do one night in a life time of
hard to define brackets

as i think SwedishFish mentioned it is now scientific FACT
that the homosexual brain is different

it may be discoverd that also the bi-sexual brain could also be different

the construct of sexual nature being evil is purely brainwashing
as far as i have found any respectable zoo-oligist type person can give you several refferences to animals having a percentage of homosexual behaviour/relations/pairing/life-time co-habitation

it is not only humans that share this type of variation

i believe in the job stakes the highest profesion represented by pedophilles and sexual abusers is clergy-men
and that is homosexual behaviour as a greater number than abuse of females from males from the data presented soo far

what i think is realy odd and extreemly sad is how the religouse extreemists create an image to their own children of intollerence and biggotry by alienating homosexual relations in humans and animals while quietly chanting women are second class citizens

its holding back the advancement of the world as a society and i think its very sad
its intellectualy retarding and once the children get out and encounter homosexual people and other animals their respect and value system that their parent has attempted to instil becomes seriousely flawed and causes a POTENTIAL
for far greater disfunction

supporting evidence is the solo parent group as a form of counter
example of the lucky mainstream ability of the more humane and intellectualy advanced people to help those of their own community

NO SEX BEFORE-marriage i believe to be a major cause of disfunctional marriages and a lack of understanding of the indavidual of their own sexual and relationship desires and needs

with a supportive and non-biggoted upbringing mixed with safe experimentation
with the emphasis on caring for the indeviduals emotional states
will solve the majority of the worlds problems

one could also argue from a religouse point that god intended the "white couple" to have a black babby to teach them the value of all life and experience a well needed intellectual growth spirt

if an addopted child does not have the same rights as a genetic child then the addoption agencys have some seriouse issues to deal with
the nature of the upbringing of a few great scientists i have read about have been in a family setting where one parent has been absent for a majority of the time regardles of marriage status

equal rights for all people is the real issue
why are religouse extreemist soo against equal rights
its just soo hypocritical

groove on all :)

"as far as i have found any respectable zoo-oligist type person can give you several refferences to animals having a percentage of homosexual behaviour/relations/pairing/life-time co-habitation"

yes yes it's true. farm animals are known to do this. it also happens in wild animals but it's easier to take data and keep track of farm animals. particularly cows and sheep. it is likely a population control mechanism.

since the clergy was mentioned i wanted to say that the rcc has clearly stated that it does not equate pedophilia with homosexuality. the instances of boys being molested are a matter of opportunity. there are significantly more alter boys than alter girls.

since the clergy was mentioned i wanted to say that the rcc has clearly stated that it does not equate pedophilia with homosexuality. the instances of boys being molested are a matter of opportunity. there are significantly more alter boys than alter girls.

Not to split hairs but most of the cases involved teenage boys. As such, it would be considered homosexual behavior not pedophilia. Also there was some major misreporting going on because only like 1%, within most professions, were sexual abusers.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13484

Originally posted by okinrus
Not to split hairs but most of the cases involved teenage boys. As such, it would be considered homosexual behavior not pedophilia.

I really don't know how you define pedophilia, but if you're going after underaged kids, then in my book, regardless of the gender of your victim, I'd say you're a pedophile. How is the pedophilic aspect negated just by the victim being of the same sex as the criminal? If your views on this made even the least bit of sense, then why aren't people going nuts over the homosexual priest problem? Would it even be a problem if they were just homosexuals?

I really don't know how you define pedophilia, but if you're going after underaged kids, then in my book, regardless of the gender of your victim, I'd say you're a pedophile.

Kids yes. Usually your talking about 8-10 year olds, not 15 and 16 year olds. http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355


How is the pedophilic aspect negated just by the victim being of the same sex as the criminal?

It's not, most of the cases involve teenagers who have entered puberty. The medical definition of a pedophile is

"A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
C. The person is at least 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. . . .
Specify if:
Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Specify if:
Limited to Incest
Specify type:
Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type"(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders 4th ed. p. 528)
http://philia.ws/define.htm


If your views on this made even the least bit of sense, then why aren't people going nuts over the homosexual priest problem? Would it even be a problem if they were just homosexuals?

Well it's important to use the correct terminology. It's obvious that the media was afraid to say that the priest were homosexual sexual offenders. Not like there isn't any heterosexual sexual offenders, but it's clearly an attempt to discredit the catholic church. Homosexuals can and do serve in the priesthood if they abstain from sex.

alter servers continue service throughout their teenage years (i served the alter when i was younger). there aren't any teenage priests so the victims are not peers of the attackers. pedophilia is a power play sickness. this is why statutory rape exists. it is assumed for the protection of the minor that they were taken advantage of as a function of their powerlessness. the role of priest and alter server makes it even more pronounced. the alter server is actually a servant of the priest: washes his hands, carries his book and holds it up for him to read, fetches everything and holds it out to him until he needs it. a teenager is most definitely a victim in priest assault cases. let's assume for argue's sake that the priest is gay and the child is gay. their sexual contact is no less of a sexual attack. the priest is still molesting a child.

back on topic. i got an email from my friend in portugal (she spends the summers there):
"I cut & pasted this section from the article b-c it particularly irriritated meç (p.s. Iºm on a portuguese-european keyboard so my typing is a little screwy).

From the ArticleÇ

For its part the Catholic church stresses the document does not promote discrimination against homosexual relationships, but instead says same-sex unions are not the same as marriages that "bring new human beings into the world."

My quick b-c Iºm on a public computer but nonetheless irate responseÇ

Not all heterosexuals can reproduce or choose to reproduce so does that make their marriages any less valid? Will the church cease to recognize any-all marriages that do not result in further additions to the population? Will they set a time limit for reproductionÇ ´Sorry Mr. & Mrs. Jones but you havenºt popped out even one kid and itºs already been two years. . . ?´
Of course not b-c that would be ridiculous! This is absolutely an attack on homosexuality and clearly
´´discrimination against homosexual relationships´´.
Peace out & much love to my homies out in nyc & massapequa park"

let's assume for argue's sake that the priest is gay and the child is gay. their sexual contact is no less of a sexual attack. the priest is still molesting a child.

Yes but the media is not using the correct terminology. If the child has entered puberty and is 15 or 16 years old then it is correct to use

"Etymological meanings: As in the case of pedophile, pederast is derived from the Greek word paidos, meaning "boy" or "child." Paiderastes was a synonym of paidophiles, referring primarily to a man who fell in love with male adolescents.

Scholarly meanings: A man who is attracted to boys, primarily male adolescents. Less commonly, a woman who is attracted to boys, or a woman who is attracted to girls.

Lay meanings: A man who is attracted to boys, primarily male adolescents; a man who has anal sex with boys. "

They still have pychological disorder but it is incorrect to classify it as pedophila.

In the objective sense, the catholic church nor any else has to give rational reasons for their morals. With in a heterosexual marriage that is infertile, there is still the possibility of a miracle of child birth.

You're going all over the place with that last post, Oki, try to keep it together!

So, by the definitions you have set forth a man who is sexually attracted to little girls is not a pedophile?

And really what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread? Even by the standards that you yourself have set forward the catholic church doesn't have a problem with pedophilia, it has a problem with statutory rape. I can't remember how any of that mattered in this instance. We all know the catholic church is issued, but why are we discussing it here?

So, by the definitions you have set forth a man who is sexually attracted to little girls is not a pedophile?

Depends on the age of the girl. If she is before puberty then it's pedophila else if she is a minor but has reached puberty, it is paedophila.


And really what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Nothing. I'm just correcting inaccurate information.

Um, thanks for the semantics. I think the question that needs to be asked now is do you believe there is more of a problem resulting from the homosexual aspect of the priest's alleged conduct, or the paedophilic aspect?

There are good priest who are not sexual offenders who suffer from SSA(same sex attraction) but chose to be celibrate within the priesthood.

The causes of this could be varied. The priest is at the highest spiritual position though. If he commits sacrilege or something like that, I could see his faith completely vanishing. This sort of depression could lead to paedophiliac behavior. I'm not sure how much of this stuft is demonic or completely psychological. I have of yet heard one of the priest give reasons to what they did.

QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
There are good priest who are not sexual offenders who suffer from SSA(same sex attraction) but chose to be celibrate within the priesthood. [/QUOTE]

Sadly enough I know many homosexuals who suffer from RIS (Religious indoctrination syndrome). Poor delusional bastards, they should get help for that.

Honestly now, this is just silliness, don't go making up your own terminology just to make homosexuality seem more like a disease. Trust me, no one is "Suffering" from homosexuality. We do, however suffer from whack jobs like you that seem to delight in our grief.

Originally posted by okinrus
The priest is at the highest spiritual position though.

hehe, yeah they are like SOOO holey. God loves all of his children, but like especialy them, man.

Originally posted by okinrus
If he commits sacrilege or something like that, I could see his faith completely vanishing. This sort of depression could lead to paedophiliac behavior.

Is their faith really so flimsy? To sacrifice your life to it I'd imagine it'd have to be pretty strong.

[An interesting side note, I can’t seem to find a definition of "Peadophilia" which differs from "Pedophilia" How do you define it?

Originally posted by okinrus
I'm not sure how much of this stuft is demonic or completely psychological. I have of yet heard one of the priest give reasons to what they did.

Haha, did you honestly just suggest that it's demonic by nature? Haha, ohh Oki, you really are just too spiritual to be of any earthly good, aren't you? Too bad none of these guys are going on trial, I’d love to hear that defense in court. “Your honor, the devil made me do it!”

Honestly now, this is just silliness, don't go making up your own terminology just to make homosexuality seem more like a disease. Trust me, no one is "Suffering" from homosexuality. We do, however suffer from whack jobs like you that seem to delight in our grief.

If I use homosexual, then that implies commiting the homosexual act. Because that was not my intent, I use SSA.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/e/j/ejm1/morella/m129.htm
"They were unwilling to admit and address the profound emotional pain they experienced in childhood of loneliness, often in the father relationship, peer rejection, lack of male confidence, poor body image, sadness, and anger." Sexual behavior is a manifestation of emotion, body image, and confidence. All of these three are clearly under the control of the environment. If pedophiles are influenced by their environment, why would it be any different for the rest of us? And I'm not delighting. If any thing, you seem to be delight in calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot. All I'm doing is stating the facts. No one is born gay or straight until proven otherwise.


hehe, yeah they are like SOOO holey. God loves all of his children, but like especialy them, man.
...
Is their faith really so flimsy? To sacrifice your life to it I'd imagine it'd have to be pretty strong.

You don't understand what I mean. They conduct the sacraments. If they go to the alter in an unclean state, then that's sacrilege. The Eucharist is faith. When some kept the manna that came down from heaven in a jar for an extra day jar, it was full of maggots. To do something like this would be to reject all of the church's teachings.


Haha, did you honestly just suggest that it's demonic by nature? Haha, ohh Oki, you really are just too spiritual to be of any earthly good, aren't you? Too bad none of these guys are going on trial, I’d love to hear that defense in court. “Your honor, the devil made me do it!”

It is a distinct possibility. Also there is no earthly good.

Medically correct definitions of pedophile and paedophile are <a href="http://philia.ws/define.htm">here</a>.

Originally posted by okinrus
It is a distinct possibility. Also there is no earthly good.

Well I guess this is just what it all really comes down to, doesn't it? You prefer death over life. Well you're quite welcome to help yourself to it.

Flores

I've avoided this topic because it stirred one of those ugly tantrums of mine at the time I first read it, and I had about four tantrums going at the time. The upshot is that, while I cannot by my conscience avoid the topic forever, I have the benefit of not firing off while I'm still in a state of perturbation.

I wanted to examine first of all your general negatives:

(1) Marriage Penalty: The marriage penalty, insofar as anyone has ever explained to me is not so much a penalty but people's expectation of a greater benefit. "Marriage Penalty" to me is still a political buzzword of the Republican Revolution that rose and foundered amid the Clinton presidency. Besides, most people I know don't count the "marriage penalty" against getting married in the first place. In fact, I can't think of any that care.

(2) Inability to have biological offspring: I don't see this as a particular difficulty unless the individual chooses to make it a consideration in their life. I'm adopted; my mother is barren by some minor cystic condition that would eventually lead to hysterectomy, removal of ovaries, and hormonal implants to make up the difference. In the United States, we reproduce irresponsibly.

(3) Unknown roles in raising of children....who takes the mother role, and who takes the father role: In all honesty, Flores, I think this is an issue best left for comedy writers without a better plot. Every committed gay couple I know has a bizarre balance going on. It won't persist among new couples as society progresses because it seems a bit of a knowing road-weariness that comes from living in the closet, under the gun, however one wishes to look at it. But beyond that, I think the confusion of roles is really a comic gag that will get old in due time. Ever see the American version of Three Men and a Baby? Many of my friends had that view of men and children in the abstract--fumbling, arrhythmic, stupid to the point of endangering the child--but they found quickly, when it was my daughter they were holding, that when you really do love something, certain things come naturally. True, my brother doesn't like the prospect of changing a diaper, but he does no worse than anyone else who doesn't do it every day, with of course the exception of grandmothers. Likewise, the stooge-like parody of gay buffoons tromping around gender roles like twaddling, mincing idiots ... I'm sure you know, Flores, how many of your personal superficialities melted away upon the arrival of your children. Well ... as you are a mother, you may well have burned them away in labor. And besides, for those tromping, twaddling, gay buffoons who do manage to get hold of children to raise ... well, I grew up in the 1980s. My parents worked a lot because they had to. I was fortunate. My friends whose families had more money ... they grew up knowing that their parents worked a lot because they wanted to. Hi, kid, you're second fiddle to Mammon. Of course, they're the ones in the advertising agencies right now and they'll be coming to political authority in the next fifteen years, so we'll get to see what it brings. Point being, I don't know if it's fair to expect that gay idiots will be any more problematic than heterosexual idiots. Less so, in fact, because of the need for secondary routes of acquiring children.

(4) Lack of sexual diversity: This is the one that actually got me to responding today. First off, the way society goes, two parents is a better idea than one. But to focus for a moment on the "single mother"--we both know that the kind of women who drink and snort crank and keep whatever guy around that can charm them and give them multiple orgasms do not represent the nature of single motherhood. Certainly there exist mothers who will tolerate a constant parade of low characters in front of their children, but I will not indict the notion of single motherhood over such an issue. Rather ... what I do wish to point out is that two loving parents of common gender is hardly the worst family situation in the world for a child. One loving parent, demonstrably, can still produce shining children. But two parents can be a very good thing, and compared to other two-parent or parent-and-additional-influence families (the chain of mom or dad's "significant others"), two stable and loving parents of common gender cannot be said to be the worst option.

Also ... there's a notion in that concern about a lack of sexual diversity that disturbs me, but ....

It just has the appearance of "girls should act like girls and boys should act like boys", and frankly there is a certain degree to which that idea, in my opinion, can be done away with.As far as artificial insemination is concerned, a potential hazard exist in destruction of geneology and understanding of ancestary of the child As an adopted child with no proper genealogy, I can say that the only thing that ever made me regret having no blood heritage was a bunch of people throughout my life who tried to teach me to think of it as tragic in some way.

Yet even without a disease history, doctors simply took some of my blood and some of my partner's blood and looked at it under certain laboratory conditions and brought back enough of a genetic profile to start creating my daughter's "disease history". Incidentally, my partner is also an adopted child with very little medical history. We know more about ourselves in that respect through having a daughter than we ever knew before.A carrier of fertilizer mother leaves many problems as well. First, only one of the gay guys could be the father, meaning, the other partner is not really a biological father. This can cause jealousy, differential treatment, and could eventually lead to a messy court battle on child custody. Strangely, I think of it the other way around. Didn't Melissa Etheridge and her partner have a baby by David Crosby or some-such? To the other, columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry sought adoption.Adoption poses all the problems stated above.Adoption in general is a bad idea for other reasons. It is also a very good idea, and perhaps the best route for any couple not endowed by nature to have children (e.g. my mom and dad?) to acquire children.

However, it is not entirely a joke when I point out that if a couple cannot naturally have children, perhaps they should just take the hint. And that applies to heterosexuals as well.Of course, once a gay marriage is legalized, one would expect the number of gay people to increase and their desire to marry one another to increase. Specifically I think you'll find a greater acknowledgment of human bisexuality. The people who reserve themselves to homosexuality from psychological trauma will probably be reduced while those who are inherently homosexual will probably remain a stable figure.The next generation born into a gay marriage would be more likely to become gay than an average person born into a straight marriage. Specifically, they will be less likely to reserve their pleasures. When I was twelve or thirteen, an orgasm was an orgasm. It didn't strike me until I was seventeen that a portion of the thoughts wandering through my head were actually homosexual. In fact, it took a fifteen year-old guy hitting on me to make me figure it out. Shoulda gone out with him ... he made millions before he was done with high school.

But in the present I eschew odd heterosexual considerations of who's the hottest woman or whatnot. In my twenties it struck me that the basis of of the beauty I found in women was rooted in sexual expectation. In wiping this aside, I've come to a certain peace with the other side of my sexuality. I don't pursue it, I don't refuse it; frankly it's easier to deal with than my heterosexual aspect has been.

But in the end it's not even about hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. It's about the conditioning that tells me the propriety of where and when I may seek certain comforts. And with those assignations come tremendous limitations of human potential.

I think of all the feminists, civil rights activists, and other people dedicated to social reconciliation and harmony and wonder what the human species could accomplish if we didn't have these issues--which I regard as superficial--to worry about. Yes, sexuality is a huge conundrum in society. No, it does not have to be.

As the restrictive politic recedes, I think you'll find that much of the identity politic will abate as well.This means that the numbers of unnatural birthes in our societies will increase, thus increasing the risk of geneology destruction and inbreeding.I tend to think that unnatural births will increase with or without the homosexual issue. Furthermore, as our genetic technology advances, inbreeding potential will shine like pink neon in a light fog. You'll be able to see it miles away. And as humanity grows, the inbreeding potential consistently lessens naturally.

What is it we restrict in this culture as far as inbreeding? Parents and children? Siblings? First and second cousins? I'm of the opinion that inbreeding is something that someone has to put some effort into.

Or so says me.

I see the issues you raise, Flores, but obviously in a different light. The day I become President of the United States, I'll be an American first. The day I convert to Christianity or Islam, I'll be a Christian or a Muslim first. The day I take any identity which precedes my humanity, I shall be that identity first. But until then, I'm a human being first, and all else second. It is fair to say that while I see the concerns, I question what I perceive to be the context against which they are compared. I'm not sure these issues will be much more than mundane ripples on the pond on a windy day.

I think it's one of those occasions when the people who do not face such issues will worry too much about those who do. I don't think these will be large functional difficulties in the context of homosexuality.

How we treat our genetics in general .. now there's a different issue. But I would think you would want to worry more about the damage done to genetics by commerce than any damage homosexuality could do.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by okinrus
Medically correct definitions of pedophile and paedophile are <a href="http://philia.ws/define.htm">here</a>.

Well the definition you gave of pedophilia is on that page, but I don't see any mention of paedophilia which differentiates it from the first term. Is this just another one of your screwed up semantic games?

erm, they're the same thing. paed- is a latin root and the british are more likley to use it than the ped- spelling. but they are the same word and same concept. anyhoo.

homosexual is a state of being, not having homo-sex. heterosexuals are not constantly having hetero-sex. (6 months here :( you can pm me your condolence cards). your stupid abbreviation is just that, stupid.

tiassa, inspiring post. :)

paidophile and paedophile are the two different medical conditions.

homosexual is a state of being, not having homo-sex. heterosexuals are not constantly having hetero-sex. (6 months here you can pm me your condolence cards). your stupid abbreviation is just that, stupid.

No it is not. It is reconizing a broader group of people than just homosexuals. Ie. it is common for some heterosexual males to be attracted to men at one point in their lives.

Originally posted by okinrus
paidophile and paedophile are the two different medical conditions.

Yes but up until this point you have completely failed to state what the difference between the two terms is. The link you provided names them as being essentially one in the same, and I can find no other source that eludes to there being a difference in the definition of these two terms.

So, what exactly is it going to take to get you to stop playing your games and come right out and say it? Or is this perhaps like your faith based arguments, and it goes somehow beyond reason, and is in essence unknowable, and simply requires some sort of mystical experience to accept? If nothing else, I have to admit that you are very skilled in the art of bogging down an argument, you have an impressive number of detour techniques at your disposal, but we’re not simply in a stalling contest here. Let’s just get to the point, shall we?

I was out on vacation, and you are my first post back Tiassa.

Originally posted by tiassa

I've avoided this topic because it stirred one of those ugly tantrums of mine at the time I first read it,

Why do you avoid it Tiassa, does it scare you. Is this one of your uneventfull area of expertise where you have found comfort in ignoring it or playing both sides..

Originally posted by tiassa

and I had about four tantrums going at the time. The upshot is that, while I cannot by my conscience avoid the topic forever, I have the benefit of not firing off while I'm still in a state of perturbation.

I do appreciate your patience, and even if you fired off at me, I wouldn't be upset, because I see you more than a temper tantrums. Actually, you get angry so seldom that I think it's not good for you, I'd like to see you vent more, it's very healthy.

Originally posted by tiassa

I wanted to examine first of all your general negatives:

My negatives are nothing but a surface brush with the issue. Most of my thoughts so far on the issue have been a mild rash and could have been cured easily with reasonable arguments coupled with valid field data, but what I have found about this issue is much emotion on both sides empty of facts and sound arguments. In moral issues, I prefer the guilty until proven innocent approach, it's just much safer and more effective. Look at slavery for example, we deemed it okay for centuries and now that we found it morally unacceptalbe, we couldn't totally get rid of it as it embedded our ways of life in all ways and just metamorphised it in other aspects of our lives instead of nipping it in the butt from the first place. Same goes for the gay issues, the liberals are busy putting bandage on it and modeling it in an unstudied bull shit shape that satisfies their unfounded idea of liberty that they figure out as they go, and the conservatives are busy opposing the whole idea to avoid the future damadge that may or may not happen.

Originally posted by tiassa

(1) Marriage Penalty: The marriage penalty, insofar as anyone has ever explained to me is not so much a penalty but people's expectation of a greater benefit. "Marriage Penalty" to me is still a political buzzword of the Republican Revolution that rose and foundered amid the Clinton presidency. Besides, most people I know don't count the "marriage penalty" against getting married in the first place. In fact, I can't think of any that care.


Tiassa, marriage penality do exist and is very wrong. It really kicks in for married couple that both work. Try figuring out your taxes for you and your spouce as singles and you'll see the difference. Why the higher taxes for two married people with two incomes? Do you think it's the lower cost of living resulting in the occupancy of one resident, I don't think so, because no one is penalizing or stopping the ten bachelors downtown who elect to pile up in one room so that they can save up.

Originally posted by tiassa

(2) Inability to have biological offspring: I don't see this as a particular difficulty unless the individual chooses to make it a consideration in their life.

Meaning that this is not a problem unless the individuals want to have kids. Well, precisely, it's always a problem for gays who want to be parents becuase they can't have biological children....So Duh.

Originally posted by tiassa

I'm adopted; my mother is barren by some minor cystic condition that would eventually lead to hysterectomy, removal of ovaries, and hormonal implants to make up the difference. In the United States, we reproduce irresponsibly.

I take it that you adoptive mother is barren.....right? and your biological mother must be the one reproducing irresponsibly....is that what you are trying to say? I say, if your biological mother couldn't raise you due to tough situation or a mental issue that she suffered just like many moms that are undiagnosed, then she made no mistake in giving you up for adoption. It's the responsbility of the adoptive parents who chose the route of adoption to adopt both the kids and the biological parents and try to make of an already wrong situation right, instead of being selfish and trying to look like they have a perfect family to protect their image while the situation boils underneath with kids who are constantly questioning and biological parents who are constantly regretting and tormenting.


Originally posted by tiassa

(3) Unknown roles in raising of children....who takes the mother role, and who takes the father role: In all honesty, Flores, I think this is an issue best left for comedy writers without a better plot.

tiassa, in all honesty, you are the one that is hilarious. You know very well, that I view the sex roles more deeper than the conventional diaper change, house cleaning, bread winning crap. I don't go stereotyping the sexes but at the same time, I don't disrespect the assets of both sexes by asking that they both be the same. Why the hell would a woman be like a man or a man be like a woman. Both are special and different for good reasons, and kids need to learn the healthy differences that make both sexes so they can grow in a balance. If you laugh about what I'm saying, then maybe I do have a good career in comedy, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by tiassa

Every committed gay couple I know has a bizarre balance going on. It won't persist among new couples as society progresses because it seems a bit of a knowing road-weariness that comes from living in the closet, under the gun, however one wishes to look at it.

What closet and what gun. Gays have by nature gotten out of every closet imaginable by persisting in their abnormal sexual behavior....They are not shy, they have taken a big stab into one of the most sacred and senstive issues of marriage and sex, polluted it, and now they demand that we bless it... What else do you want, a party for them to congratulate them on their bahavior??? Where is your priorities? what age and moral code are we dealing with when it's okay to use third world countries as nuclear and waste dumb grounds while we raise hell over homosexual behavior? How much torture does a gay person go through in trying to make a straight family work, is it as much work as an orphan living in an orphanage have to go through to figure out why is god seemingly so unfair to him/her, yet learn to worship and love the god that created them and gave them life regardless of the upsets.

Originally posted by tiassa

(4) Lack of sexual diversity: This is the one that actually got me to responding today. First off, the way society goes, two parents is a better idea than one. But to focus for a moment on the "single mother"--we both know that the kind of women who drink and snort crank and keep whatever guy around that can charm them and give them multiple orgasms do not represent the nature of single motherhood. Certainly there exist mothers who will tolerate a constant parade of low characters in front of their children, but I will not indict the notion of single motherhood over such an issue. Rather ... what I do wish to point out is that two loving parents of common gender is hardly the worst family situation in the world for a child. One loving parent, demonstrably, can still produce shining children. But two parents can be a very good thing, and compared to other two-parent or parent-and-additional-influence families (the chain of mom or dad's "significant others"), two stable and loving parents of common gender cannot be said to be the worst option.

Tiassa, to save you from reading so much, I'll sum it up briefly in a question? If you have a patient who suffered a car accident and is in need of blood for survival, do you transfer blood to him/her from an AIDS patient or a healthy patient.? All your examples imply that you wish to trasfer AIDS contaminated blood to healthy patients in the name of tolerance and satisfying the realities of a society full of diseace. Noone is underestimating the sick here. I have respect for AIDS patients. They are humans with real struggles and challenges, but they are a case by case scenarios and not standard cookie cutters for all of us to lead our lives by. Don't use the fact that a single mother can be successfull or that a mother an aunt are successful in rasing families to establish ground rules....For you are building your gay case on very shaky grounds.

Originally posted by tiassa

Also ... there's a notion in that concern about a lack of sexual diversity that disturbs me, but ....

That's a very strong point actually. And the slight sickness in your head that a man and woman should be the same and that the women are somehow with the short end of the sex stick is blurring your vision from seeing the sexes in the correct light. This blurred vision is not one that is healthy to use as a filter glass for another kid to learn from.

Originally posted by tiassa

It just has the appearance of "girls should act like girls and boys should act like boys", and frankly there is a certain degree to which that idea, in my opinion, can be done away with.As an adopted child with no proper genealogy, I can say that the only thing that ever made me regret having no blood heritage was a bunch of people throughout my life who tried to teach me to think of it as tragic in some way.

It's not tragic Tiassa, you missed the point becuase of your pity on yourself that manifested itself in anger toward others that tried to not so elequontely point out some truth to you. Being an orphan Tiassa is very tragic, and you might have been an orphan...You must be made with a mind of steel and equipped with much good luck to survive that tragic situation. I hope to god that he protects my life everyday, not because I love life, but because I would hate to see my kids without me, how so unfair. Who would love them like I do? Who would look at them like they are the best thing on earth worthy of a better life than the one I have.....

Originally posted by tiassa

Yet even without a disease history, doctors simply took some of my blood and some of my partner's blood and looked at it under certain laboratory conditions and brought back enough of a genetic profile to start creating my daughter's "disease history". Incidentally, my partner is also an adopted child with very little medical history. We know more about ourselves in that respect through having a daughter than we ever knew before.Strangely, I think of it the other way around. Didn't Melissa Etheridge and her partner have a baby by David Crosby or some-such? To the other, columnist Dan Savage and his partner Terry sought adoption.Adoption in general is a bad idea for other reasons. It is also a very good idea, and perhaps the best route for any couple not endowed by nature to have children (e.g. my mom and dad?) to acquire children.

Adoption is awesome, but not the way it's currently done in the US. The adoptive parents here are not really doing a great deed. It seems sometimes that they are selfish and just trying to acquire children because they couldn't have one of their own. The adoptive parents are mostly society and image ridden with how things should be which influenced their decision. This is like saying that pet owners are helping the environment? How can keeping an animal in an artificial environment leading an artificial life be of any help to the environment. If you wish to help the environment, you must help it at the roots and at the source. Adoptive parents who are in this mess to help, must enter the environment of the child and work within the environment instead of stealing a plastic baby for them to mold at their wish.

Originally posted by tiassa

However, it is not entirely a joke when I point out that if a couple cannot naturally have children, perhaps they should just take the hint.

Not too drastic Tiassa, you can help a child and vent your parental desires, but in a fair just way.

Originally posted by tiassa

When I was twelve or thirteen, an orgasm was an orgasm. It didn't strike me until I was seventeen that a portion of the thoughts wandering through my head were actually homosexual.

You nipped it in the butt here. A thought in your head is the key. A portion of the thougts in my head too are bisexuals, but I excersie mind control and my previlidge of being a human with a free will to do what I think is right. Supressing homosexuality and excercising straight sex is the right thing to do, and noone said that the right path is the easy path...You know that the straight path is the steep path, the narrow path, the most difficult path.

Originally posted by tiassa

In fact, it took a fifteen year-old guy hitting on me to make me figure it out. Shoulda gone out with him ... he made millions before he was done with high school.

And why do others not figure out what me and you figured out? What is the difference between me and you and the homosexual society, we all were tempted, we were all exposed to it somehow, some of us resisted, some of us corrected our behavior, and some of us stayed....why?

Originally posted by tiassa

But in the present I eschew odd heterosexual considerations of who's the hottest woman or whatnot. In my twenties it struck me that the basis of of the beauty I found in women was rooted in sexual expectation. In wiping this aside, I've come to a certain peace with the other side of my sexuality. I don't pursue it, I don't refuse it; frankly it's easier to deal with than my heterosexual aspect has been.

My same exact experience Tiassa...You are not alone, we all have two aspects that we must deal with, and you are doing good with what you were given.


Originally posted by tiassa

But in the end it's not even about hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. It's about the conditioning that tells me the propriety of where and when I may seek certain comforts. And with those assignations come tremendous limitations of human potential.

It's very strong to use the term limitation of human potential. Let me explain. Humans are like an optimum function with dependant factors. These factors are not all optimum, but together they behave optimumly. If you try to optimize one of the parameters, you'll throw your function into inefficiency status and screw things up. Sexuality is just a paremeter of our being....It needs to be balanced for the entire function to perform. If you optimize sex, other things will suffer equally.


Originally posted by tiassa

I think of all the feminists, civil rights activists, and other people dedicated to social reconciliation and harmony and wonder what the human species could accomplish if we didn't have these issues--which I regard as superficial--to worry about. Yes, sexuality is a huge conundrum in society. No, it does not have to be.

Again, the civil rights activists are trying to push the limits of the parameters while they don't look at the function as a whole. They are screwing things up in ways that they can't percieve. Each of those experts is dealing with a human with thousands degrees of freedom, everytime they think they fixed one degree, the screw the next.

Originally posted by tiassa

I see the issues you raise, Flores, but obviously in a different light. The day I become President of the United States, I'll be an American first. The day I convert to Christianity or Islam, I'll be a Christian or a Muslim first. The day I take any identity which precedes my humanity, I shall be that identity first. But until then, I'm a human being first, and all else second. It is fair to say that while I see the concerns, I question what I perceive to be the context against which they are compared. I'm not sure these issues will be much more than mundane ripples on the pond on a windy day.

You will always be Tiassa first before you are an American, Christian, Muslim, ect. And Tiassa's experience is not fit for Flores nor is Flores fit for Tiassa. So when you become president, remember that you are dealing with millions degrees of freedom that you can't let them all loose and have to control each one on the expence of the other.

Yes but up until this point you have completely failed to state what the difference between the two terms is. The link you provided names them as being essentially one in the same, and I can find no other source that eludes to there being a difference in the definition of these two terms.

A pedophile goes for preadolecents and a paidophile goes for adolecents.


So, what exactly is it going to take to get you to stop playing your games and come right out and say it? Or is this perhaps like your faith based arguments, and it goes somehow beyond reason, and is in essence unknowable, and simply requires some sort of mystical experience to accept? If nothing else, I have to admit that you are very skilled in the art of bogging down an argument, you have an impressive number of detour techniques at your disposal, but we’re not simply in a stalling contest here. Let’s just get to the point, shall we

No just requires a medical dictionary just like the definition of marriage. I've found that it's best not to argue with you all. If you do not love God, then what's the point? You can justify anything.

If you do not love God, then what's the point? You can justify anything.

Thanks Ivan. :rolleyes:

So, now that we know your medical dictionary draws different conclusions from others, what is the point of what you are saying, Okinrus?

"reasonable arguments coupled with valid field data, but what I have found about this issue is much emotion on both sides empty of facts and sound arguments."

Im afraid most of us tried reasoned arguments, its just that "objective" facts are hard to get on this subject.

"Same goes for the gay issues, the liberals are busy putting bandage on it and modeling it in an unstudied bull shit shape that satisfies their unfounded idea of liberty that they figure out as they go, and the conservatives are busy opposing the whole idea to avoid the future damadge that may or may not happen."

LIke you say, empty of facts and sound argument. Unfounded idea of liberty on what? That the humans sexuality is their own, moreover is partly a matter of choice and partly hard wiring? And as for future damage, you have yet to decently explain what can be expected that is really a problem of the sort that has not already been dealt with in different situations.

"Both are special and different for good reasons, and kids need to learn the healthy differences that make both sexes so they can grow in a balance. If you laugh about what I'm saying, then maybe I do have a good career in comedy, but I doubt it."

Again, nice sensible comment.

"What closet and what gun. "

The one that uses "fag" "homo" gay etc as insults, that leads parents to ask their childrne if they are homosexual and get worried about the possibility, the beatings up of homosexuals that was a regular part of our history, the closet that made people think it was better to get into a fake heterosexual marriage with an understanding woman than be openly homosexual, all that sort of thing. FAce it, here you are the reactionary, kicking back against a reasonable move forwards. I cannot deny that some have gone a bit too far, been a little too loud, but then that is the way when trying to make a life for youself. Would you have preachers denied the use of microphones in order to not insult other people through them hearing the preachers words?

"Where is your priorities? what age and moral code are we dealing with when it's okay to use third world countries as nuclear and waste dumb grounds while we raise hell over homosexual behavior? "

My point precisely, just legalise civil homosexual marriage and lets get on with cleaning up the third world, why waste time on this?


"That's a very strong point actually. And the slight sickness in your head that a man and woman should be the same and that the women are somehow with the short end of the sex stick is blurring your vision from seeing the sexes in the correct light. This blurred vision is not one that is healthy to use as a filter glass for another kid to learn from. "

I htink your doing Tiassa a disservice here, but im sure he'll reply himself at some point. In the mean time, me and many of my friends see that women are in some ways being forced to be just women, and men just as men, sxual stereotyping has been around a long time, but what we want is the freedom to be as much of the characteristics of man or woman as we want, as we are. It seems clear from some research that peopels brains are a mix of characteristics that are taken form various points on a continuum labelled at one end "feminine" and at the otehr "masculine" and that neither extreme is particularly desirable, then when society gets to work on people, things get problematic.


"Who would love them like I do? Who would look at them like they are the best thing on earth worthy of a better life than the one I have....."

Do you not see that homosexual couples are as much capable of that feeling as you are?


"And why do others not figure out what me and you figured out? What is the difference between me and you and the homosexual society, we all were tempted, we were all exposed to it somehow, some of us resisted, some of us corrected our behavior, and some of us stayed....why?"

Answer- because our brains are wired differently, some are hardwired towards homosexuality, and some are kind of in between. And of course personal choice has something to do with it, thats why you get bisexuals and people who switch sides as it were. So what makes you think we have a homosexual society, has the incidence of homosexuality rocketed in the past 30 years?

"Again, the civil rights activists are trying to push the limits of the parameters while they don't look at the function as a whole. They are screwing things up in ways that they can't percieve. Each of those experts is dealing with a human with thousands degrees of freedom, everytime they think they fixed one degree, the screw the next."

This function as a whole has been trundling along for millenia, so why do you say it'll suddenly fall apart if we allow homosexual marriage? AS for fixing one degree and screwing the next, that is a problem common to all human interactions.

"You will always be Tiassa first before you are an American, Christian, Muslim, ect. And Tiassa's experience is not fit for Flores nor is Flores fit for Tiassa. So when you become president, remember that you are dealing with millions degrees of freedom that you can't let them all loose and have to control each one on the expence of the other."

But its with that sort of idea that us who oppose your anti homosexuality are doing so, that what suits Flores doesnt suit someone else who is homosexual.

Ivan? You know that scientists found that it was not his religion but poisoning that caused his sudden outbreaks of rage?

Who, Dostoevski? He was epileptic, not prone to outbursts of rage.

I can justify all manner of things with the Bible - my arguments may be flawed, but I can make decent arguments. Without God, as Kazamarov says, all is permitted.
People don't obey codes, they obey promptings. The best will obey themselves and not just their promptings, but who you are is really more important than what you believe.

I thought you meant Ivan the Terrible. Yes, without God all is permitted. However what makes you think that having everything permitted is "good". With no universal good, we would be prompted to do absolutly nothing and that forbids deciding that emptyness is good. So what you believe effects how you behave. Otherwise there would be no point to believing in Jesus.

okinrus:
I don't think it's good or bad, it just is. I used to find it unpleasant...now I've more or less gotten used to it.

With no universal good, we would be prompted to do absolutly nothing and that forbids deciding that emptyness is good.

I disagree. We still have the instinct to survive, to create. We don't need an idea of universal good in order to be.

And I would suggest that homosexuality exists, and is a natural occurence, hence the topic of this thread is, in good couthy scots, mince.

Flores, thanks for the unfounded and offensive analogy between gays and AIDS patients. Are you suggesting there's something that would infect children raised by a homosexual couple?

okinrus, you keep changing the spellings and meanings of the words. now you're just making things up.

i think i've figured out what flores's problem with "The gays" is. after reading through all her posts in this thread it is clearly apparent that she has repressed bisexual tendencies. let it out girl. accept who you are and be free. there's nothing wrong with listening to your body.

since i have given up on faggotry, i been keeping busy with the family tree. yknow.. branches sprouting out all over the place. it seems that, when deposited in the correct orifice, my seed is very potent! hmm, it just struck me...fags are tree trimmers!

go hef g hef! i dont think it humanely possible to get any shallower!;)

Gays … are not shy, they have taken a big stab into one of the most sacred and senstive issues of marriage and sex, polluted it

This is the real issue for you, isn’t it? That homosexual marriage somehow devalues or "pollutes" heterosexual marriage, in the same way that some people don’t like blacks moving into their neighbourhood.

Obviously you attach a certain “status” to marriage, define yourself by it, which is why you feel personally threatened by the notion of homosexual marriage.

You value it as a bit of social shorthand that lets everyone know what kind of person you are and what your “values” are. With homosexual marriage in place, being a “married” woman wouldn’t generate quite the same assumptions anymore, now would it? Maybe you need to find some more meaningful ways to define yourself.

Originally posted by okinrus

No just requires a medical dictionary just like the definition of marriage.

Marriage is now a medical term?

Originally posted by okinrus
I've found that it's best not to argue with you all. If you do not love God, then what's the point? You can justify anything.

I found that it's probably best to just pay your arguments lip service around the time you started suggesting demonic forces as a reality in another thread. Oh, and you've got that backwards, if someone doesn't argue on the premise of "Well the cosmic sky father says so" then they actually have to rely on logic and sometimes even facts in a debate. That's quite a novelty isn't it?

"Marriage is now a medical term?"
Your being way to obtuse. I did use "like".


I found that it's probably best to just pay your arguments lip service around the time you started suggesting demonic forces as