[karajorma]

Originally posted by Corhellion
...how...did he...get elected in the first place?

He didn't.

[diamondgeezer]

Right, Kazan, Stryke, all you two ever do is ***** about Bush. When exactly are you planning on actually doing something about him? And I don't mean Stryke saying 'I'll post bombs to senators' or some other bull****. I mean like take this stuff your supposed to have in your Consitution and use it. Cos to be honest it's getting annoying

Clearly you tolerate Bush and his fuck-ups since you still live in the States and haven't, as far as HLP is aware, started any riots or civil wars or anyother stuff you're suposed to do as responsible citizens when the government fucks up

[aldo_14]

Well, there is an election coming up which requires fixing..............

[redmenace]

my main problem with gay marriage is not the marriage part of it but the legal rights that come with it are a little disturbing.

I dan't think it would be cool to have a little boy say I am 5 and I have 2 dads. My problem is with rights like adoption and that is why I oppose it.

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]I don't see how that would seriously detrimentally effect a child, short of being bullied into the ground in school. They'd just become tough skinned after a while, and if they don't then that's their problem, they'll live.

Anyway. I gave up seriously caring about US internal politics a while back, it's not worth spending the time to understand. So long as they don't bring it over to mainland Europe then I'm happy, because that's where I'm going to be headed when I've done my time in England.[/color]

[Fineus]

I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.

That's true, but using that as a reason for making it illegal would be running away from the issue, rather than tolerating it.  

Insofar as I can tell, the argument against it is that it makes the child more likely to be homosexual.....I'm not sure that's even true, because I doubt many of the present homosexual population come from that sort of background.   The lack of a male / female role model is a complaint that could be made, but the same reason could be used for taking away the children of single parents.

[Kazan]

redmenace: there are plenty of scientific studies that show cildren raised by homosexuals grow up to be perfectly normal (including being more often than not, heterosexual) -- so try and imply that homosexuals would only raise homosexuals would be to try and say that only heterosexuals raise heterosexuals -- which we all know is completely untrue

==========================

Here is something interesting
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Nazification_GermanyvsAmer.html

I knew all of that before - but it's a nice article for those of you who don't


Are you aware that aroud 20000 people were illegally disenfranchised in florida - mostly democrats - when Jeb and his secretary of state created a false list of felons.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
I suppose it does put the unknowlegable in an awkward position - a boy of 5 probably won't have much of a clue about homosexuality, but it's almost certain to cause problems for him somewhere down the line, either with peers or with teachers or anyone too close minded to except his parents orientation.

They used to come out with the same sort of crap against mixed marriages.

"Oh. The child won't know what culture he's from. ",  "He'll get racial abuse in school"

As the product of several generations of mixed marriages I for one am very glad that that sort of comment has been mostly consigned to the dustbin of history (Only far right wing propaganda even claims such crap now).

Originally posted by Kazan
Are you aware that aroud 20000 people were illegally disenfranchised in florida - mostly democrats - when Jeb and his secretary of state created a false list of felons.

I was aware of it BEFORE the election and I don't even live in the US. I'm deeply saddened that there are americans who don't know.

[redmenace]

I also wonder about the safety of the child. just wondering. I mean it is possible to be stuck with a pair of abusive heterosexual couple. but I wonder if there is a greater chance with two homosexual males.

[diamondgeezer]

The balanced male-female role model thing is pretty much the only objection I would accept, and it's not by itself strong enough an argument to ban gay marriage.

I suppose you could at least rely on gay parents to teach the importance of open-mindedness to a child... you'd hope

[EDIT]Red, dude... there are pleanty of cases every day of hetero couples abusing their children in the manner of your choice. Saying gay couples could put a child in danger in that respect is not going to hold water

[Odyssey]

[color=cc9900]It's not like one a child raised by a single-sex couple would be overtly acting like one or the other gender anyway. You'd just end up with a nice neutral kid who could be friends with everyone. Well, that's probably not what'd happen, but it'd be nice wouldn't it?[/color]

[redmenace]

I am not sure either way about which would be worse. I mean my parents did foster care, I know how many bad mothers there are.

[Flipside]

It just annoys me that gay men and women can add to society and culture in America everywhere you turn, and yet are consistently treated like a 'sub race' by apparently large factions of it.

[Fineus]

Well there are psychological influences on a childs upbringing and parents - I used to be a psychology student you know

@ Kara, please don't for a minute think that I'm saying Bush is right in this issue or anything like that. I'm not condoning what he says and think that banning homosexual marriages is wrong.

However lets think about this. We've come a long way since the farming days of old America where black men were slaves to the whites of the land and generally looked down upon, racial tolerence has drastically increased (though granted, racists still exist - but that's not the point of this thread). So here's a scenario...

It's sports day at a boys school, all the parents have gone to watch - and all the kids are taking part. Who is more likely to be gossiped about by children, teachers, parents? The inter-racial couple kissing in the sun as they eat a picnic, or the two gay men holding hands as their adopted son runs on to his friends?

Both doing absolutely no harm to anyone. But society is not yet accomadating enough to give the child of the second couple an equal chance in life - not only will he be a source of ridicule for his adoption, but also for the fact that he was adopted by a homosexual couple. It's a sad but (very probably) true fact.

That said, I'd like to point out once again that homosexual union should not be banned. However there are issues further down the line to consider - and humanity on the whole has a long way to go before it can except them.

[redmenace]

However, this is not what REALLY bothers me. According to the idea of interstate commerce and the way the states are set up, this decision entirly should be left TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS. The Federal Gov't has no place to decide this. As you can tell I am NOT A FEDERALIST and am more of a champion of states rights.

[Liberator]

May I suggest some reading, it highlights the actual purpose behind several current social controversies:
Michael Savage

Sean Hannity

[Stryke 9]

DG: When did I ever say anything even remotely like "I'll post bombs to senators"? Don't ****ing put words in my mouth. Even if I imagined that **** would get anything done, like **** I'd talk about it here.

You seem to flap mouth an awful lot. Have you ever tried to arrange a civil war? Have you ever tried to get a small demonstration going? Have you ever tried getting a single ****ing person to act on something they're largely apathetic about? No? Then shut the **** up. Twit.

It's enough that I have to live with the fact that people don't care enough about anything in the real world to get off their ****ing TVs and do anything with me (or anybody else), I don't need arrogant little passivist turds like you giving me **** about what I've failed to do.

Yeah, just start a ****ing revolution, it's so ****ing simple, wonder how nobody's ****ing thought of that before. Hell, if only the mail bomb thing'd do more than change the faces of the guys ****ing us. Mindless violence I can do.

[Flipside]

I don't know one major change in mankinds thinking that has not been bought about by having reality rammed down our throats.

Humanity doesn't do 'tolerance' for the main part, nor does it do 'understanding' or even 'learn'.

Gay bashers will continue bashing Gay's regardless of what excuse they can think up, so I say what the hell?

Yes, kids will get taunted at school, for the first few years after the Equal Ops Bill, Black children got taunted at school, let's face facts, everyone gets taunted at school, people will find one 'uniqueness' about you and taunt you about it, that's what kids do. It won't be easy, but unfortunately, the first few will have to pave the way for the future.

Hanging on till people get used to the idea will mean it will never happen, thats just the way humanity is.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Well there are psychological influences on a childs upbringing and parents - I used to be a psychology student you know

@ Kara, please don't for a minute think that I'm saying Bush is right in this issue or anything like that. I'm not condoning what he says and think that banning homosexual marriages is wrong.

However lets think about this. We've come a long way since the farming days of old America where black men were slaves to the whites of the land and generally looked down upon, racial tolerence has drastically increased (though granted, racists still exist - but that's not the point of this thread). So here's a scenario...

It's sports day at a boys school, all the parents have gone to watch - and all the kids are taking part. Who is more likely to be gossiped about by children, teachers, parents? The inter-racial couple kissing in the sun as they eat a picnic, or the two gay men holding hands as their adopted son runs on to his friends?

Both doing absolutely no harm to anyone. But society is not yet accomadating enough to give the child of the second couple an equal chance in life - not only will he be a source of ridicule for his adoption, but also for the fact that he was adopted by a homosexual couple. It's a sad but (very probably) true fact.

That said, I'd like to point out once again that homosexual union should not be banned. However there are issues further down the line to consider - and humanity on the whole has a long way to go before it can except them.

Again. Everyone used to say the same crap about mixed marriages. The reason why we have more racial tolerance now is because people were willing to say "f**k it" to the objections and go ahead and get married.
 If no one ever stands up nothing ever changes.