[Fineus]

Fair enough, but there's a slight difference - tolernce or not - I don't see one member of any homosexual couple suddenly gaining the ability to create children with the other. That fact alone raises questions about whether a young child should have a homosexual couple "forced" upon them, and there's been no psychological research into what effects (if any) this might have on the child in later life.

As a simplified analogy, people might say "f*** it" and let people drive without lisences, but they'd be quick to change that once the death rate on roads sky-rocketed. Slightly different I know but the same lack of knowlege regarding the effects on the child applies. We know that letting people drive without lisences is asking for trouble. We don't know what would happen to an adopted child of a mixed sex couple.

NB: I realise how some of this sounds, but it has to sound that way to get the point across. I've nothing wrong with gay couples - but I've everything wrong with impressing a belief, way of life, sexuality or anything else upon a child without giving them the chance to choose their own way forward.

[Flipside]

Fair enough Kalth, and I do understand what you are saying, but the only way we are going to find out what effects same-sex parents will have on their 'child' is to let some couples adopt.

It's a tough subject to talk about because it's very easy to have a reservation and find it interpreted as homophobia.

[kasperl]

Kal, what about children from Amish family;s? what about those born in NeoNazi families? a childs birth will always impress the parents beliefs on it.

edit:
disclaimer: a glass of whiskey doesn't improve my typing skills, my spelling, or my rational thinking. feel free to ignore this if it doesn't make sense

[Fineus]

That's true, but unless I'm wrong both of those are cultural differences - not sexual differences. And when a boy is born a boy - the so called norm is that the boy is attracted to girls in later life.

At its most basic, survival of the species dictates that homosexuality is not oppressed, but not actively encouraged in children to young to make a choice either.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
That's true, but unless I'm wrong both of those are cultural differences - not sexual differences. And when a boy is born a boy - the so called norm is that the boy is attracted to girls in later life.

At its most basic, survival of the species dictates that homosexuality is not oppressed, but not actively encouraged in children to young to make a choice either.

the last paragraph seems nonsense to me, for the species to survive homosexuality should be banished, disabled should be sterilized/killed, and only those with good genes should be allowed any social benifits.

as for the first paragraph, i can't really seem to see any real difference, a childs views and character will always be shaped by his or her parents, teachers, friends and general envirement.

disclaimer: same as the last, i seem barely comprehensible to myself, really.

[Su-tehp]

I'm not gonna comment on the psychological aspect of gay marriage; I don't know diddly about that.

But as for the political aspect of it, this is just one more nail in Bush's political coffin. Once again, he's alienating everyone else just to get in tight with his ultra-conservative supporters. 60% or so of all Americans may not support gay marriage, but ask people whether they want a constitutional ban on it and close to 70% of all Americans will say NO. Two thirds of all the state legislative houses in the USA have to ratify it before it could go on the books. With those sorts of requirements and the number of people ambivalent about the proposed amendment, this amendment is NEVER going to get ratified.

I think Bush knows this. He's trying to use gay marriage as a wedge issue to split the Democrats. But this could VERY easily backfire on him because there are a lot of Republicans who won't support the proposed amendment. Lots of states' rights Republicans are dismayed that Bush is trying to rewrite the Constitution on an issue that they think should be left to the states. And the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican gay-rights group, has already publicly announced that they are going to oppose Bush on the gay marriage amendment.

(I never understood what the Log Cabin Republicans were all about. I mean, they're in favor of gay rights, but they vote Republican? Cripes, what the hell are they thinking?)

Bush is already splitting his own party over this issue. If the Republican moderates are smart enough, they'll stay home in November because Dubya has been a disaster for eveything (environment, gay-rights, civil liberties) that they stand for. If they really get smart (not likely, but one can always hope), they'll vote for the Democrat nominee to send a message to the Republican right wing.

People are expecting a close race in November. I am too, but every time I see Bush run right instead of to the center, I can't help but think that his message of being a "compassionate conservative" is going to fall flat. One of the reasons Bush "won" in 2000 was that he managed to deceive people into thinking that he was a moderate Republican. After today (and after everything else that has happened in the last three years), he's going to have a MUCH tougher time of doing that.

No moderate Republican with half a brain should vote for Bush in November.

[kasperl]

well, it's not the voting that counts, it's the counting.

but that's another discussion alltogether, already made.

and can someone explain to me the exact differences between the Dems and the Reps? i am so glad we (Holland) have a multi party system, where anyone over 21 and living here for more then 5(or more, dunno) years, and enough members/cash to produce a campaign fund can start a party. all the party's have pretty solid programs, no stuff where half that party goes here and the other half there.


ok, that was completely OT, sorry, read the disclaimer in my last posts.

[Kazan]

Kalfireth: there have been studies about the effects of gay parents on children -- the effects were found to be _NONE_

[Liberator]

Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin?  This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.

Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep.  I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.

[Kazan]

******slaps Liberator*

Bigotous attitude


They have found that homosexuality has genetic foundings so EAT **** AND DIE RELIGIOUS ****!

[Stryke 9]

Problem is, Kerry's campaign line isn't really much different than the platform Bush ran on.

[Kazan]

Kerry is a ****ing asshole - i am soo pissed that the media caused dean to get elbowed out of the race


playing the scream 693 times within 48 hours....  the man is a ****ing human give me a break he yelled "YEAH!" in front of an excited crow of supporters

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin?  This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.

Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep.  I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.

Which is precisely why i hate organised religion.....

[Fineus]

Religion - for me - doesn't enter into homosexuality. Religion may try and take some opinion on it but in the end they're entirely separate issues.

Kazan, can you state your source that found no effects of homosexuality on children - I'd like to read it if it's available

[Stryke 9]

Agreed. It's funny how anybody who's not outright right of center- i.e. Kucinich and Dean (never mind Sharpton, who's an overt liberal) is painted as some kind of freaky far-out radical by the news these days, and anybody who voices disapproval of any of Bush's policies is accused of some foaming-at-the-mouth irrational hatred of the man.

[Kazan]

Thunder: i don't remember where i read it - all i remember that it was an NAS approved study


Kucinich was an idiot


Dean was a smart man, a little unrestrained and enthusiastic, but he's a human.  I'd much rather have someone _REAL_ that someone that's always "calm and restrained".

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by kasperl
and can someone explain to me the exact differences between the Dems and the Reps?

There are LOTS of differences, though a very few people (like Nader) still believe the two parties are mostly the same. Four years ago, a lot more people (like Nader) were convinced that the two parties were the same. In the last four years, lots of people wised up. Nader didn't. But that's a different rant.

(Some) Republicans believe that government should be kept small and has no business regulating business. They are very much into laissez-faire economics and that the market economy should function without ANY restrictions or regulations whatsoever. They also HATE taxes of any sort and many Republican right-wing extremists want to get rid of ALL taxes. (Grover Norquist, a very influential conservative and the president of Americans for Tax Reform and has been quoted as saying the following: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Many Republicans believe that government agencies of ANY type always do more harm that good and should all be abolished.

And those are just the economy-minded Republicans. The "neoconservative" foreign policy Republicans hate the United Nations and think the U.S. has the right to flout any multi-national treaty we've ever entered simply when it becomes inconvenient. The invasion of Iraq was all their doing.

And don't get me started about the evangelical Christian, Bible-thumping Republicans. They hate abortion, gay-marriage, the separation of church and state, no-fault divorce, and anything else that doesn't comport to their idea of "traditional values."

Democrats are pretty much the opposite of all that. They believe in environmental regulations, government programs that help the needy and poor and they also favor a woman's right to choose abortion. They favor working through the United Nations whenever possible and favor working with our allies instead of doing an end run around them. Democrats favor taxes on the highest wage earners ($200,000 a year or more) and fiscal responsibility.

As you may have guessed, I am a Democrat.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Liberator
Why would God create Homosexuals and then declare homosexuality a sin?  This leaves the single conclusion that God did not create Homosexuals.

Therefore homosexuality is a choice, akin to having sex with a dog or a sheep.  I'm not going to complain or try to control what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but their is a such a thing as decency, and anybody here who claims to be a person of faith, any faith should decry the idea of consecrating such an unnatural, evil union.

Let me guess, Liberator, you're a Creationist also, right?

When did God declare homosexualtiy was a sin? Men wrote the Bible. And don't talk to me about "the Holy Ghost guiding the hands of the men who wrote the Bible" unless you can actually come up with some SCIENTIFIC PROOF of such a thing. (Yes, as you've probably guessed, I'm an atheist.)

But that aside, homosexuality is NOT the same thing as bestiality and only a fool would think otherwise. It's one thing for two men or two women, who are both of age and both consenting adults, to enter into a sexual relationship. It's damn well another for a guy to stick his willy into a goat that is incapable of consent.

My mother, may she rest in peace, was the best Catholic I ever encountered in my entire life (and coming from a South American country, I've known a LOT of religious Catholics) and she was very much in favor of gay rights. I don't share my mother's faith but I ALWAYS appreciated how much her faith made her stronger to deal with the cancer that eventually killed her. Don't presume to insult me or my dead mother by saying that every person of faith has to be as intolerant as you. Being an American, I've always known that being intolerant of others just because their lifestyle or beliefs may not match mine and who are not harming anyone else is inherently evil and un-American.

Libby, I think you have to learn about evil.

[diamondgeezer]

Whee! Quite possibly my longest post EVAR!

Originally posted by 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.

[/b]
The sentator thing was off the top of me head. I meant to say that you often talk about doing this and that with bombs and whatnot. See bottom of this post

You seem to flap mouth an awful lot

Dude... you're saying that?

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?

Nope. Which is why I don't complain about the government all the time, cos I don't do much to try and change the status quo (I was going to go crash a pro-fox hunting rally once but I didn't wake up till 2pm that day...). Which was my point in the first place.

Then shut the **** up. Twit.

Dude, that hurt

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)

The very fact that you are living with it was my point. You're living with it. You're not acting to change the things of which you complain so bitterly all the time. Ranting on the interweb doesn't count

I don't need arrogant...

Pot, kettle, etc. If you didn't already know you're widely considered one of the most arrogant peeps on the board

... little passivist...

Passive? Well let's see, I'm attending a Navy interview board in July, and in order to bag my career of choice I'm currently spending much of my free time reading up on politics and whatnot and finally doing all the training and exercise I put off for so long. I feel postively pro-active these days, don't you know?

... turds like you giving me **** about what I've failed to do.

[/b]
'Cos you're not giving politicians **** about what they've failed to do?

Good effort on the use of 'turd' BTW

Hell, if only the mail bomb thing'd do more than change the faces of the guys ****ing us. Mindless violence I can do. [/B]

Ah, now see this is what I was talking about - claiming to be mindlessly violent. I'm not accusing you of bull****ting or talking bollocks (er... although I may have done in a previous post) but just what kinds of violent acts have you pulled off in your life, mindless or otherwise?


Wow, that was some serious editing went in to that'n

[EDIT]Blimey, this thing balooned to its third page while I was typing all that

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
I'm an atheist.

You lost him here, I guarantee it.