PDA

View Full Version : San Diego Joins the 21st Century supports gay marriage.


Logical
09-21-2007, 07:02 PM
Do you know where your city stands. Would you support a Mayor that voted to suppurt gay marriage or would you try to recall him/her? By Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
6:19 p.m. September 19, 2007

Mayor Jerry Sanders reversed his position on gay marriage Wednesday, supporting it in emotional remarks punctuated by pauses, shaking sips of water and his wife's hand resting one time reassuringly on his back.
...

A day after staff members said Sanders would veto it, the mayor announced that he would sign a City Council resolution passed Tuesday that directed the City Attorney's Office to file a brief in support of gay marriage. The council voted 5-3 to send the brief to the state Supreme Court backing an end to the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Similar briefs have been sent by other cities, which like San Diego, are not directly involved in the case. Almost 200 people attended the council hearing on the issue, with gay marriage supporters arguing for equal treatment under the law, and opponents contending marriage should be between a man and a woman. “As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night I could just not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation,” Sanders said. In a reference to his daughter and two staff members who are gay, he said, “I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones, for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and loves them back, someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences, and I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law.” In his 2005 mayoral campaign, Sanders said he supported civil unions and domestic partnerships but not gay marriage. “I have personally wrestled with that opinion ever since,” he said Wednesday his voice wavering. “My opinions on this issue have evolved significantly as I think the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life have.” In a nod to those who don't support gay marriage, he said, “I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or even understand.

Ari Chi3fs
09-21-2007, 07:03 PM
The Thandy Eggo Thuperthargers.

SBK
09-21-2007, 07:03 PM
I'm a knuckle dragging caveman that wouldn't support this action.

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2007, 07:06 PM
I'm not in a city, so there's no mayor to support or recall. But if I were, I'd support him/her. I'm in favor of gay civil marriage.

On the other hand, if my pastor announced that he was going to begin performing gay marriages in our church, I'd do what I could to get the board of elders to remove him. If that didn't work I'd be shopping for a new church.

Count Zarth
09-21-2007, 07:07 PM
EVERYONE HAS AIDS!!!! AIDS AIDS AIDS!

Jayhawkerman2001
09-21-2007, 07:09 PM
i think if somebody tried to recall a mayor that supported gay marriage, they would be a conservative dumbass bastard... If a gay person wants to get married, it has nothing to do with anybody but the couple that wants it...

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2007, 07:10 PM
Looks like maybe you should have posted this in D.C.

Jayhawkerman2001
09-21-2007, 07:14 PM
yah, DC would be a better place. so everybody says every time this stuff comes up

JBucc
09-21-2007, 07:16 PM
I don't care. All marriage means is she gets half your shit.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:17 PM
i think if somebody tried to recall a mayor that supported gay marriage, they would be a conservative dumbass bastard... If a gay person wants to get married, it has nothing to do with anybody but the couple that wants it...
Yeah, sure, until they decide they want to raise children.

Count Zarth
09-21-2007, 07:19 PM
I'm more like a tea kettle. When I blow, I blow hard.

Jayhawkerman2001
09-21-2007, 07:19 PM
Yeah, sure, until they decide they want to raise children.

if they want to, thats fine too.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:20 PM
Yeah, sure, until they decide they want to raise children.

They'll totally try to raise them gay too. You just know it.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:22 PM
if they want to, thats fine too.
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:22 PM
They'll totally try to raise them gay too. You just know it.
Not even my point, ****wad.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:24 PM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.

That's a stupid reason to oppose gays raising children and I'm not sure how it even pertains to the issue of marriage. They can raise kids regardless.

Jayhawkerman2001
09-21-2007, 07:24 PM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.

most of the time other children wouldnt know that the child has 2 dads. but in my honest opinion, a little hazing only makes somebody stronger. if thats the only reason to make it so 2 men cant have a child though, then its not enough, in my opinion. this is all my opinion, so idk.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:26 PM
That's a stupid reason to oppose gays raising children and I'm not sure how it even pertains to the issue of marriage. They can raise kids regardless.
Yeah, they can. IMO they shouldn't though. Kids can be cruel SOBs.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:28 PM
Kids can be cruel SOBs.

They can be and they'll find something to be cruel about. If it's not one thing it's another. It's got nothing to do with being raised by a gay parent.

Braincase
09-21-2007, 07:28 PM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.

No kid should get tried for a hate crime either, but the first time that happens and makes the news, you'll have a courthouse full of advocates lobbying to try the kids under federal hate crime legislation.

elvomito
09-21-2007, 07:31 PM
do gay people support abortion?
are there any gay vegetarians?
can gay marriage help reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by cows?
will gays be more likely to drive cars that burn water?
do gays support wearing white uniforms at home?

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:32 PM
do gay people support abortion?
are there any gay vegetarians?
can gay marriage help reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by cows?
will gays be more likely to drive cars that burn water?
do gays support wearing white uniforms at home?

We'll have to have GoatCheese get back to us on all of that.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:33 PM
most of the time other children wouldnt know that the child has 2 dads. but in my honest opinion, a little hazing only makes somebody stronger. if thats the only reason to make it so 2 men cant have a child though, then its not enough, in my opinion. this is all my opinion, so idk.
Yeah a little hazing makes them stronger. I grew up with a kid who was getting his ass kicked regularly just because his dad was a cop. He ended up killing himself and his wife in a murder-suicide. I'm sure getting terrorized nearly every day of his school years had nothing to do with it.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:34 PM
They can be and they'll find something to be cruel about. If it's not one thing it's another. It's got nothing to do with being raised by a gay parent.
Yeah, let's just put a bullseye on them.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:35 PM
Yeah a little hazing makes them stronger. I grew up with a kid who was getting his ass kicked regularly just because his dad was a cop. He ended up killing himself and his wife in a murder-suicide. I'm sure getting terrorized nearly every day of his school years had nothing to do with it.

Do you want to legislate based on the grounds that something might get a kid picked on? You also want laws passed that will prevent parents from naming their kids certain names?

Count Zarth
09-21-2007, 07:37 PM
We'll have to have GoatCheese get back to us on all of that.

I am not gay and do not have any gay friends. Why would I know anything about gay culture?

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 07:38 PM
Yeah, let's just put a bullseye on them.

I got shit from a couple of friends when I was younger because they used to think my mom was hot. Should we legislate against hot moms?

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:40 PM
Do you want to legislate based on the grounds that something might get a kid picked on?
I think it should be taken into consideration. I would hope that gay couples wouldn't be selfish enough to put a kid in that situation, but I know that's not going to happen.

You also want laws passed that will prevent parents from naming their kids certain names?
:hmmm: I'm thinking about it.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 07:41 PM
I got shit from a couple of friends when I was younger because they used to think my mom was hot. Should we legislate against hot moms?
Wayyyyyy different. Not even in the same time zone.

BTW, got pics? :)

jidar
09-21-2007, 07:46 PM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.


Based on that stupid ****ing argument I'd say you've got about the perfect avatar there, Corky.

Logical
09-21-2007, 07:46 PM
...do gays support wearing white uniforms at home?

Evidently not, see Goatse for a reference.

Logical
09-21-2007, 07:49 PM
I am not gay and do not have any gay friends. Why would I know anything about gay culture?

Because you claim to not only blow, but you blow hard?

Count Zarth
09-21-2007, 07:50 PM
Evidently not, see Goatse for a reference.

Quality post.

Count Zarth
09-21-2007, 07:50 PM
Because you claim to not only blow, but you blow hard?

Herm will definitely make me blow hard.

SNR
09-21-2007, 08:24 PM
Yeah, this should probably be DCed

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:28 PM
Sorry, kiddo, but the people who were going to adopt you happen to be looked down upon by society because [insert reason here]. Here, have some more gruel.

So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.If it bothers you so much, how about we install tougher regulations against bullying or something instead of keeping kids from loving homes on the off chance that a negative side effect that's completely outside their control may control?

Jesus Christ, at least the people like Ron Paul who are all, "EWWW GROSS!" or "JESUS SAYS THAT'S WRONG!" are being honest.

Mayor Jerry Sanders reversed his position on gay marriage Wednesday, supporting it in emotional remarks punctuated by pauses, shaking sips of water and his wife's hand resting one time reassuringly on his back. What the ****?

Well, okay, I guess he knows that his political career's pretty much over at this point, but still. Bizarre.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 08:28 PM
What a friggin' coward.... Kalifornication, is alive and well; even in San Diego. Wow.

Hopefully voters will send his sorry ass packing in the next election. In Kalifornication, though....I'd be surprised. :rolleyes:

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:32 PM
What a friggin' coward.... Kalifornication, is alive and well; even in San Diego. Wow.

Hopefully voters will send his sorry ass packing in the next election. In Kalifornication, though....I'd be surprised. :rolleyes:Yeah, he should have just totally caved to the Christian right instead. That would have shown everyone how brave he is.

Faggot.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 08:34 PM
Yeah, he should have just totally caved to the Christian right instead. That would have shown everyone how brave he is.

Instead he caved into the lunatic fringe rainbow coalition of gay and politically correct geeks and wacko liberals that have become the modern day KKK of the gay rights movement. How quaint. :rolleyes:

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:39 PM
Instead he caved into the lunatic fringeSo what you're saying is that he's sided with the unpopular minority? What a coward!

modern day KKK of the gay rights movementHoooooly Christ. That's amazing. Just for sheer entertainment value, please elaborate.

SNR
09-21-2007, 08:41 PM
Instead he caved into the lunatic fringe rainbow coalition of gay and politically correct geeks and wacko liberals that have become the modern day KKK of the gay rights movement. How quaint. :rolleyes:So if you were gay are you saying you would hide in a closet just so nobody saw you exercising your right to free speech in demanding that you have equal rights?

SNR
09-21-2007, 08:42 PM
BTW, I still don't see how you get to "wacko leftist nutjob KKK of the gay rights movement" from "I support gay marriage."

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:43 PM
So if you were gay are you saying you would hide in a closet It's Kotter. Of course he <strike>does</strike> would.

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:43 PM
I'm not being a prick here, but you're gay right?I'm a tranny. That's even less socially acceptable than the homos.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 08:45 PM
Instead he caved into the lunatic fringe rainbow coalition of gay and politically correct geeks and wacko liberals that have become the modern day KKK of the gay rights movement. How quaint. :rolleyes:

I do generally respect your intelligence, but I can't fathom you being this dumb.

Simply Red
09-21-2007, 08:46 PM
I'm a tranny. That's even less socially acceptable than the homos.
That's fine. I'm sorry to put you on stage that wasn't my goal here. Perhaps I typed w/o thinking. No disrespect.

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 08:47 PM
That's fine. I'm sorry to put you on stage that wasn't my goal here. Perhaps I typed w/o thinking. No disrespect.Eh, no biggie. It would have been traumatic even typing that first sentence a couple of years ago, because it would have meant admitting it to other people, even a bunch of goofballs on the intertubes. But now, it ain't no thang.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 08:49 PM
So if you were gay are you saying you would hide in a closet just so nobody saw you exercising your right to free speech in demanding that you have equal rights?

Not at all...you don't have to stay in the damn closet....

BUT, you don't have to parade down Main Street in a friggin' fusha tutu and fishnet panty hose, while grinding against a stripper pole...as a tranny. :shake:

In my job, 10-20% of people I come into contact with, even in SD, are either gay themselves....or have a gay family member. Big deal. Big whoop. They don't care; I don't care. No one really cares.

You know what the difference between THEM and attention whoring/drama queen gay rights folks, in other parts of the country is??? They don't draw attention to themselves, or the fact they are gay; it's just who they are in their private lives....and they know, that 90% of us don't care, one way or the other what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms--and, certainly, don't think less of them because of it. Good for them. Bravo.

Of course, they aren't the ones beating their chests and screaming at the top of their lungs.....whose insecurities and need to feel loved cause them to become the Rikki Lake/Ellen DeGeneres/psicosis that some feel the need to become, in order to "come out" of the closet.

Thank goodness. :shake:

Logical
09-21-2007, 08:49 PM
No she is transgendered, huge difference.

Simply Red
09-21-2007, 08:51 PM
No she is transgendered, huge difference.
easy Jimbo.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 08:51 PM
No she is transgendered, huge difference.

Her sympathies, and political position and myopia on this topic....speak for themselves, thank you. :shake:

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 08:53 PM
If it bothers you so much, how about we install tougher regulations against bullying or something instead of keeping kids from loving homes on the off chance that a negative side effect that's completely outside their control may control?
They've been trying to implement that at schools for years. It doesn't work.
Jesus Christ, at least the people like Ron Paul who are all, "EWWW GROSS!" or "JESUS SAYS THAT'S WRONG!" are being honest.
Are you implying that I am hiding something by saying that? Sure, I don't care for what they do, but that has little, if any, effect on other people. To each his own AFAIC, until kids are drawn into it.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 08:55 PM
Are you implying that I am hiding something by saying that? Sure, I don't care for what they do, but that has little, if any, effect on other people. To each his own AFAIC, until kids are drawn into it.

You don't deny rights because you're afraid it might lead to some bullying. In what other circumstance could you apply your reasoning to, in terms of denying someone rights?

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 08:56 PM
I do generally respect your intelligence, but I can't fathom you being this dumb.

FWIW, I am taking some liberties with hyperbole and TIC sarcasm--for the sake of stirring shit (at least in that particular post).... if that matters.

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 09:00 PM
Not at all...you don't have to stay in the damn closet
. . .
Of course, they aren't the ones beating their chests and screaming at the top of their lungs.....whose insecurities and need to feel loved cause them to become the Rikki Lake/Ellen DeGeneres/psicosis that some feel the need to become, in order to "come out" of the closet.Rikki Lake's a lesbian?

Oh, and I love the juxtaposition between the first post and the last paragraph. Classic in an "I'm not a racist, but..." way.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:04 PM
You don't deny rights because you're afraid it might lead to some bullying. In what other circumstance could you apply your reasoning to, in terms of denying someone rights?
Sorry, but I simply don't believe it's just going to be "some" bullying. Any childs life in that situation would be a living hell. Perhaps someday we may get to the point where that's not the case, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 09:04 PM
Rikki Lake's a lesbian?

Oh, and I love the juxtaposition between the first post and the last paragraph. Classic in an "I'm not a racist, but..." way.

Rosie, Rikki....same difference; my bad.

Think what you want. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is, I know, respect, and cherish relationships I have with people who would never beat their chests....to announce to the world they are gay and/or transgendered.

At last count it was SIX in my "immediate" circle of family and friends. :shrug:

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:11 PM
Sorry, but I simply don't believe it's just going to be "some" bullying. Any childs life in that situation would be a living hell. Perhaps someday we may get to the point where that's not the case, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

I guess you're right. We probably shouldn't have bothered integrating the schools or things like that either. It might've really bothered some people and led to bullying.

You're only allowed to have rights that you wouldn't be bullied for having!

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 09:12 PM
friggin' mods....asleep at the wheel....I figured I would have kicked this bitch of a thread over to D.C. by now, for sure..... :hmmm:

:banghead:






:shake:

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:14 PM
Sorry, but I simply don't believe it's just going to be "some" bullying. Any childs life in that situation would be a living hell. Perhaps someday we may get to the point where that's not the case, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

Kids get picked on for being of mixed races. Should we not allow interracial marriage and prevent those couples from raising children on that basis?

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 09:17 PM
I guess you're right. We probably shouldn't have bothered integrating the schools or things like that either. It might've really bothered some people and led to bullying.

You're only allowed to have rights that you wouldn't be bullied for having!

You done any research on the loss of life and property due to forced busing??? :shrug:

Interesting stuff.... :hmmm:

FTR, I agree we HAD to desegregate, THEN rather than later. However, we should be mindful of the costs...and the fact that while you can change the law, you can't change minds and hearts of people....over-night. Change takes time....and we must have patience.

Ironically, the "backlash" has helped....tremendously....the political party you seem to hold in such contempt.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:19 PM
You done any research on the loss of life and property due to forced busing??? :shrug:

Interesting stuff.... :hmmm:

FTR, I agree we HAD to desegregate, THEN rather than later. However, we should be mindful of the costs...and the fact that while you can change the law, you can't change minds and hearts of people....over-night. Change takes time....and we must have patience.

I agree with you, and the 'cost' would be significantly less in regards to gay parents.

KCTitus
09-21-2007, 09:23 PM
LOL...It's as if all the other societies of the world are embracing of the butt secks except for the backwards amerika...yeah. Logical's boy, Amadinajad, has ruled that homos be stoned to death. Yep, even the enlightened ones dont like the fags, but hey, America's still the backwater fugups that Jim portrays.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2007, 09:23 PM
I agree with you, and the 'cost' would be significantly less in regards to gay parents.

I think you underestimate, the logical, intelligent, heartfelt, and conscientious objections....to normalizing what many consider to be a deviant lifestyle.

While religion plays a role, it goes much deeper than many liberals and politically correct/egalitarian types understand.

Much deeper than was the case with race, and gender, was in my humble opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Guess we'll see.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:26 PM
I think you underestimate, the logical, intelligent, heartfelt, and conscientious objections....to normalizing what many consider to be a deviant lifestyle.

I've been counter-arguing Bugeater's stance that gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they'd just get picked on. It wasn't about the morality of homosexuality.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:39 PM
Kids get picked on for being of mixed races. Should we not allow interracial marriage and prevent those couples from raising children on that basis?
Still not the same thing.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:40 PM
Still not the same thing.

Why not?

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:46 PM
I've been counter-arguing Bugeater's stance that gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they'd just get picked on. It wasn't about the morality of homosexuality.
I haven't gone as far to say it should be illegal for them to do it, I only brought up children when someone said it won't have any effect on anyone else. I do feel that legalizing gay marriage would result in a more cavalier attitude towards those couples raising children, at which point I look back to my school days and try to imagine a child coping with such a stigma, and the image I get isn't pretty. Maybe I'm more sensitive to such things since I've seen firsthand the longterm damage that intense bullying can cause.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:47 PM
I haven't gone as far to say it should be illegal for them to do it, I only brought up children when someone said it won't have any effect on anyone else. I do feel that legalizing gay marriage would result in a more cavalier attitude towards those couples raising children, at which point I look back to my school days and try to imagine a child coping with such a stigma, and the image I get isn't pretty. Maybe I'm more sensitive to such things since I've seen firsthand the longterm damage that intense bullying can cause.

Again, so why is the bullying any different in instances where it's a result of being racially mixed?

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:48 PM
Why not?
Are you going to deny homosexuality carries a greater stigma than someone of mixed races?

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:50 PM
Are you going to deny homosexuality carries a greater stigma than someone of mixed races?

To who, you? You're using school kids in your argument. Both scenarios could lead to bullying.

You've said bullying can cause all this trauma, but apparently it's acceptable as long as the bullying was a result of being racially mixed.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:51 PM
Again, so why is the bullying any different in instances where it's a result of being racially mixed?
I would think it would be far more harsh and commonplace. I'm repeating myself now, but it would make the child a more likely target IMO.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 09:53 PM
I would think it would be far more harsh and commonplace. I'm repeating myself now, but it would make the child a more likely target IMO.

So would being of mixed races. And you've gone on about the trauma the bullying could cause the kid. So with that being the case, why are you okay with the bullying in the case of a mixed marriage, but not in the case of the kid with gay parents?

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 09:58 PM
So would being of mixed races. And you've gone on about the trauma the bullying could cause the kid. So with that being the case, why are you okay with the bullying in the case of a mixed marriage, but not in the case of the kid with gay parents?
You're putting words in my mouth, where on earth did I say it was ok in a mixed-race situation? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this, but I'm neither mixed race nor was I raised by gay parents so I honestly don't know if one would be truly worse than the other. I do believe we've come a lot farther when it comes to race than we have with homosexuality in this country, therefore the mixed race should less likely be a problem.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 10:05 PM
You're putting words in my mouth, where on earth did I say it was ok in a mixed-race situation?

You said gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children because the kids would get picked on for having gay parents. I brought up the fact that there's plenty of bullying that goes on towards kids of mixed races. If you think that logic is enough to warrant gays not raising children, why allow interracial couples the same benefit?

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 10:13 PM
Are you going to deny homosexuality carries a greater stigma than someone of mixed races?Sure, now it does. I don't see how shielding everyone from homosexuals and their families is going to let people come to grips with the fact that they're just people, though.

It's such a spurious argument. "Well children with gay parents may get picked on because some people don't like or understand gay people. Therefore, we should endeavor to keep gay people from being seen or associated with in every respect, so that people will... continue to irrationally fear gay people."

If kids are being bullied, for whatever reason, the answer is to deal with the bullying. You don't tell little Danny to stop reading at a sixth grade level because it makes his classmates uncomfortable, you tell his classmates to stop being dicks. You don't sterilize the poor so they can't have kids who wear shabby, out of fashion clothes.

Bullies latch onto any reason to pick on others, and the severity is dependent only upon the bully. Having gay parents, being multiracial, being a nerd, having a weird name, having red hair, or being of foreign descent is only going to present as much of a problem as the bully wants it to.

FAX
09-21-2007, 10:15 PM
Welcome to the Planet, little Danny.

FAX

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 10:46 PM
You said gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children because the kids would get picked on for having gay parents. I brought up the fact that there's plenty of bullying that goes on towards kids of mixed races. If you think that logic is enough to warrant gays not raising children, why allow interracial couples the same benefit?
Um, I actually answered that in the part of my post that you cut off.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 10:58 PM
Sure, now it does. I don't see how shielding everyone from homosexuals and their families is going to let people come to grips with the fact that they're just people, though.

It's such a spurious argument. "Well children with gay parents may get picked on because some people don't like or understand gay people. Therefore, we should endeavor to keep gay people from being seen or associated with in every respect, so that people will... continue to irrationally fear gay people."

If kids are being bullied, for whatever reason, the answer is to deal with the bullying. You don't tell little Danny to stop reading at a sixth grade level because it makes his classmates uncomfortable, you tell his classmates to stop being dicks. You don't sterilize the poor so they can't have kids who wear shabby, out of fashion clothes.

Bullies latch onto any reason to pick on others, and the severity is dependent only upon the bully. Having gay parents, being multiracial, being a nerd, having a weird name, having red hair, or being of foreign descent is only going to present as much of a problem as the bully wants it to.
Just because you tell the classmates to stop being dicks doesn't mean they will. I've seen the crap in my son's schools. They talk big about how they're tough on bullying but the truth is they can't do much about it. Dickhead kids usually have dickhead parents. Maybe when we, as adults, can deal with the issue of homosexuality better, we can expect it of our kids as well. We're not there yet.

Phobia
09-21-2007, 10:59 PM
Aw crap, your son should have waited just a couple months longer.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 11:01 PM
Um, I actually answered that in the part of my post that you cut off.

No you didn't. Kids are still picked on for being of mixed race. It's not a matter of us moving forward as a society. We're talking about bullying between kids. Now please tell me why one's acceptable and the other is not.

Logical
09-21-2007, 11:08 PM
friggin' mods....asleep at the wheel....I figured I would have kicked this bitch of a thread over to D.C. by now, for sure..... :hmmm:

:banghead:
:shake:
Not asleep, I just know the rules and this is not a political thread.

Baconeater
09-21-2007, 11:11 PM
No you didn't. Kids are still picked on for being of mixed race. It's not a matter of us moving forward as a society. We're talking about bullying between kids. Now please tell me why one's acceptable and the other is not.
GDI, I never said that. None of it is acceptable. All I've said is it's far more likely to have a negative effect on the kid.

Phobia
09-21-2007, 11:12 PM
You said gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children because the kids would get picked on for having gay parents. I brought up the fact that there's plenty of bullying that goes on towards kids of mixed races. If you think that logic is enough to warrant gays not raising children, why allow interracial couples the same benefit?

The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

Logical
09-21-2007, 11:14 PM
LOL...It's as if all the other societies of the world are embracing of the butt secks except for the backwards amerika...yeah. Logical's boy, Amadinajad, has ruled that homos be stoned to death. Yep, even the enlightened ones dont like the fags, but hey, America's still the backwater fugups that Jim portrays.First I have never supported Amadinajad. 2nd I never tried to portray the rest of the world as more advanced. Much of Europe yes. Finally I was simply bring up the advancement of US culture into the 21st century.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 11:17 PM
All I've said is it's far more likely to have a negative effect on the kid.

I haven't heard you explain why. Having gay parents is going to be an irrelevant issue once the kid actually grows up. He's not going to get bullied for having gay parents when he's 30.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 11:17 PM
The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

You think single people should be allowed to adopt?

Logical
09-21-2007, 11:23 PM
Just because you tell the classmates to stop being dicks doesn't mean they will. I've seen the crap in my son's schools. They talk big about how they're tough on bullying but the truth is they can't do much about it. Dickhead kids usually have dickhead parents. Maybe when we, as adults, can deal with the issue of homosexuality better, we can expect it of our kids as well. We're not there yet.

The reason we can deal better with inter-racial children/parents is because the issue was forced. In time the same will be true for homosexuality.

Logical
09-21-2007, 11:25 PM
Aw crap, your son should have waited just a couple months longer.

Haha actually funny, if you think it will get a rise out of me think again.

Ultra Peanut
09-21-2007, 11:28 PM
The reason we can deal better with inter-racial children/parents is because the issue was forced. In time the same will be true for homosexuality.No! The only way for things to get better is to vigorously enforce the status quo!

Logical
09-21-2007, 11:29 PM
The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

Phil, isnt the key to good parenting, loving your children and working to make the correct choices. Why would heterosexuals be better at that than homosexuals? Should children in your eyes be taken away from single parent families?

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 11:30 PM
Phil, isnt the key to good parenting, loving your children and working to make the correct choices. Why would heterosexuals be better at that than homosexuals? Should children in your eyes be taken away from single parent families?

Basically. And keep in mind we're talking about kids who are adopted. They don't have 'parents' and a loving household in the first place.

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2007, 11:33 PM
You think single people should be allowed to adopt?

I have done some work with a wonderful, 30-something, single woman who adopted a Chinese girl. She's a great mother and an infinitely better alternative than her daughter would have faced otherwise.

ClevelandBronco
09-21-2007, 11:33 PM
Basically. And keep in mind we're talking about kids who are adopted. They don't have 'parents' and a loving household in the first place.

Right. What you just said.

HolmeZz
09-21-2007, 11:35 PM
I have done some work with a wonderful, 30-something, single woman who adopted a Chinese girl. She's a great mother and an infinitely better alternative than her daughter would have faced otherwise.

I agree. Anybody who's willing, able, and has the desire to adopt a child(and their background checks out) should be able to. That includes single parents and couples.

Logical
09-22-2007, 02:26 AM
I agree. Anybody who's willing, able, and has the desire to adopt a child(and their background checks out) should be able to. That includes single parents and couples.

Exactly, I did not always feel this way but as I thought it through I realized this is the only important point.

Ultra Peanut
09-22-2007, 04:16 AM
Hey, at least if they have NO parents, the bullies will leave them alone... right?

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 04:46 AM
Who cares? Based on the divorce rate, its not like straight people are really digging marriage...

I really could care less. Marriage is a sacrament of the church, and a religious ceremony. Why is the state getting involved in consenting adults business?

I'm far from gay, and personally have nothing against gay couples, but I've been more than forthright to the gay couples that I know that I would prefer not to see them going at it or even making out around me. It's not that I don't think that its totally an innately born disposition, I just don't wanna watch it. Funny thing is, I know a number of gay guys that throw some of the best parties, and they always have tons of hot girls there. If you actually meet and get to know a cool gay guy or 2, they can bump your odds up of hooking up with very choice women. At the end of the day, they know you're straight, and as long as you don't act like a homophobe and are just yourself, it's of little consequence.

Logical
09-22-2007, 01:58 PM
Who cares? Based on the divorce rate, its not like straight people are really digging marriage...

I really could care less. Marriage is a sacrament of the church, and a religious ceremony. Why is the state getting involved in consenting adults business?

I'm far from gay, and personally have nothing against gay couples, but I've been more than forthright to the gay couples that I know that I would prefer not to see them going at it or even making out around me. It's not that I don't think that its totally an innately born disposition, I just don't wanna watch it. Funny thing is, I know a number of gay guys that throw some of the best parties, and they always have tons of hot girls there. If you actually meet and get to know a cool gay guy or 2, they can bump your odds up of hooking up with very choice women. At the end of the day, they know you're straight, and as long as you don't act like a homophobe and are just yourself, it's of little consequence.

Good point of view, though marriage is no longer limited to Churh sanctioned ceremonies. That is part of where the problem lies marriage now is any legal proceeding tying a man to a woman as it is currently defined.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 02:17 PM
Good point of view, though marriage is no longer limited to Churh sanctioned ceremonies. That is part of where the problem lies marriage now is any legal proceeding tying a man to a woman as it is currently defined.


Sorry, I didn't clarify. I know there are civil unions that are state recognized, usually done by a judge or magistrate. I took family law while in law school, and I think its a pretty black and white subject for me when you look at it in terms of constitutional considerations.

Forcing churches to marry gay couples that don't want to is a 1st Am. violation of religious freedom.

Any state that performs civil unions of straight people and refuses to not provide them to gay people are violating the 14th Am. Equal protection.

It's a felony hate crime to maliciously go after some one based on their sexual disposition; so while sexual orientation is not as protected a class as race, gender, or religion- it's still being legislatively recognized as a group that is not subversive and worthy of legal protection.

End of the day: Why does anyone care if two people wanna live together in a committed relationship?

greg63
09-22-2007, 02:22 PM
Good point of view, though marriage is no longer limited to Churh sanctioned ceremonies. That is part of where the problem lies marriage now is any legal proceeding tying a man to a woman as it is currently defined.

...i.e. Tony G's commitment ceremony.

Logical
09-22-2007, 02:22 PM
Sorry, I didn't clarify. I know there are civil unions that are state recognized, usually done by a judge or magistrate. I took family law while in law school, and I think its a pretty black and white subject for me when you look at it in terms of constitutional considerations.

Forcing churches to marry gay couples that don't want to is a 1st Am. violation of religious freedom.

Any state that performs civil unions of straight people and refuses to not provide them to gay people are violating the 14th Am. Equal protection.

It's a felony hate crime to maliciously go after some one based on their sexual disposition; so while sexual orientation is not as protected a class as race, gender, or religion- it's still being legislatively recognized as a group that is not subversive and worthy of legal protection.

End of the day: Why does anyone care if two people wanna live together in a committed relationship?

I know it is a distinction that the constitution does not recognize but the federal government in the form of the IRS does. It requires marriage for a couple to pay less in taxes, marriage as recognized by the federal government does not have to be performed by a church. Until this is rectified gays are going to seek the status of marriage not just civil unions, but they are not trying to force churches to perform the ceremonies.

Spott
09-22-2007, 02:28 PM
Gays should marry too. Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer?

SLAG
09-22-2007, 02:31 PM
End of the day: Why does anyone care if two people wanna live together in a committed relationship?

Because Some things in this world are intrinsically Evil and intrinsically go against the Natural Law.

Legal Abortion, Artifical Birth Control, Homosexual Unions, all contradict the Natural Law.

Two guys or two girls are permitted to be best friends even one could authorize the other as Legal Power of Attorney, but Naturally two guys having Sex cannot procreate out of the sexual union, same with two females.



Natural Law


People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.



"I Was Born This Way"


Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.



The Ten Percent Argument


Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.



"You’re Just a Homophobe"


Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 02:39 PM
Because Some things in this world are intrinsically Evil and intrinsically go against the Natural Law.

Legal Abortion, Artifical Birth Control, Homosexual Unions, all contradict the Natural Law.



So, your personal choice of religion teaches you it's Evil. IMO- :rolleyes:

As we have freedom of religion, why should your choice of religion trump someone else's choice of religion on this issue?


Forcing churches to marry gay couples that don't want to is a 1st Am. violation of religious freedom.

Any state that performs civil unions of straight people and refuses to not provide them to gay people are violating the 14th Am. Equal protection.


:clap: Very well stated.


End of the day: Why does anyone care if two people wanna live together in a committed relationship?

Because some folks feel their choice of religion should dictate the rules the rest of us live by?

SLAG
09-22-2007, 02:42 PM
So, your personal choice of religion teaches you it's Evil. IMO- :rolleyes:

As we have freedom of religion, why should your choice of religion trump someone else's choice of religion on this issue?

I am not speaking of Religion I am Speaking of NATURAL LAW

The Natural thing for a Penis to go into is a Vagina that is the way the Penis and Vagina was created

#1-Penis Gets Stiff
#2-Vagina Gets Wet
#3- Penis Enters Vagina
#4- Penis Ejaculates Semen In Vagina
#5- If woman is fertile then New Human Life is Created

Rinse Repeat

This is the NATURAL way, any other Way or change to Process is contrary to the Natural Order, this is not Religion this is NATURE

Extra Point
09-22-2007, 02:44 PM
Don't ask, f*ck off.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 02:44 PM
I am not speaking of Religion I am Speaking of NATURAL LAW

The Natural thing for a Penis to go into is a Vagina that is the way the Penis and Vagina was created

#1-Penis Gets Stiff
#2-Vagina Gets Wet
#3- Penis Enters Vagina
#4- Penis Ejaculates Semen In Vagina
#5- If woman is fertile then New Human Life is Created

Rinse Repeat

This is the NATURAL way, any other Way or change to Process is contrary to the Natural Order, this is not Religion this is NATURE

Only if you believe (IMO, naively) the sole purpose of sexuality should be procreation.

And all the nonsense about it being "evil" comes directly from your personal choice of superstition. :rolleyes:

As for the fact they can't procreate, unless you are willing to bar infertile men and women from civil unions, your argument is even weaker than it appears in the first place. After all, they have just as low a probability of producing new life. What does your "natural law" have to say about that? After all, (gasp) the infertile heterosexuals would be having sex without any chance of procreation!

Seems to me you should at least be intellectually honest to admit that you don't think civil unions should be legalized is because your religion tells you it's bad, and you think everyone else should be made to live by that idea as well.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 02:51 PM
And all the nonsense about it being "evil" comes from your personal choice of superstition. :rolleyes:

As for the fact they can't procreate, unless you are willing to bar infertile men and women from civil unions, your argument is even weaker than it appears in the first place.

You obviously dont understand the difference, The Natural order is for Penis in Vagina, not Penis in Anus, not Vagina on Vagina- Procreation is possible only in the most perfect conditions

Procreation does not happen after every sexual act but every sexual act should naturally be open to procreation, if it is not possible it is not possible but whenever the form is contrary to the NATURAL order it is an Gravely Disordered action

Extra Point
09-22-2007, 02:53 PM
"As for the fact they can't procreate, unless you are willing to bar infertile men and women from civil unions, your argument is even weaker than it appears in the first place. After all, they have just as low a probability of producing new life. What does your "natural law" have to say about that? After all, (gasp) the infertile heterosexuals would be having sex without any chance of procreation!"

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/alx_-TB2IN0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/alx_-TB2IN0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 02:54 PM
SO why in nature is it commonly observed that many different species will engage in both opposite and same sex.

Some species also eat their young or abandon them if food is scarce.

Where is this Natural Law, is that different than God's law?

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 02:54 PM
You obviously dont understand the difference, The Natural order is for Penis in Vagina, not Penis in Anus, not Vagina on Vagina- Procreation is possible only in the most perfect conditions

Procreation does not happen after every sexual act but every sexual act should naturally be open to procreation, if it is not possible it is not possible but whenever the form is contrary to the NATURAL order it is an Gravely Disordered action


You forgot, "IMO".

Again, as an infertile couple has zero probability of having children, and "every sex act should naturally be open to procreation", how does that not qualify as a "Gravely Disordered action"?

Again I ask:

Your belief that "every sexual act should naturally be open to procreation" is a "Religious" belief. Why should your view on that trump another persons Religious view in Civil Law?


Seems to me you should at least be intellectually honest to admit that you don't think civil unions should be legalized is because your religion tells you it's bad, and you think everyone else should be made to live by that idea as well.


Where is this Natural Law, is that different than God's law?

AFAICT, it's whatever some chap in Rome says it is..as long as he's speaking "Ex Cathedra".

That's one heck of a peer-review system. ROFL

Logical
09-22-2007, 02:54 PM
I am not speaking of Religion I am Speaking of NATURAL LAW

The Natural thing for a Penis to go into is a Vagina that is the way the Penis and Vagina was created

#1-Penis Gets Stiff
#2-Vagina Gets Wet
#3- Penis Enters Vagina
#4- Penis Ejaculates Semen In Vagina
#5- If woman is fertile then New Human Life is Created

Rinse Repeat

This is the NATURAL way, any other Way or change to Process is contrary to the Natural Order, this is not Religion this is NATURE

This post is so ignorant and intollerant I just want to smack you upside the head and say grow up.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 02:55 PM
We need to legislate anti-blowjob laws. It does not lead to procreation and is therefore unnatural.

Logical
09-22-2007, 02:56 PM
You obviously dont understand the difference, The Natural order is for Penis in Vagina, not Penis in Anus, not Vagina on Vagina- Procreation is possible only in the most perfect conditions

Procreation does not happen after every sexual act but every sexual act should naturally be open to procreation, if it is not possible it is not possible but whenever the form is contrary to the NATURAL order it is an Gravely Disordered action

ROFLROFLROFL Vagina on vagina, your ignorance of gay activity is showing.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 02:57 PM
We need to legislate anti-blowjob laws. It does not lead to procreation and is therefore unnatural.

We've had them. Just look at all the antiquated Blue Laws that have been struck down recently.

ROFLROFLROFL Vagina on vagina, your ignorance of gay activity is showing.


:hmmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribadism

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 02:57 PM
This post is so ignorant and intollerant I just want to smack you upside the head and say grow up.

I'll differ. I respect you opinion that being gay is wrong, b/c everyone's opinion is to be allowed. I just won't agree that your opinion means you get to force others to conform to your ideal.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 02:58 PM
SO why in nature is it commonly observed that many different species will engage in both opposite and same sex.

Some species also eat their young or abandon them if food is scarce.

Where is this Natural Law, is that different than God's law?

that would be natural for that species not the Human Race

The Human Race does not Naturally Eat their young .

If the Human Race was ment to Naturally engage in intercourse with those of the same sex then why do YOU not? Why is it the Exception not the rule?

Logical
09-22-2007, 03:03 PM
We've had them. Just look at all the antiquated Blue Laws that have been struck down recently.




:hmmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribadism


I know it can be done and sometimes is, but it is uncommon according to the lesbians I know. They will admit that in their relationships tongue on clitoris is the most common method followed by one woman wearing a strap on and assuming the male dominant role in the relationship.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:04 PM
I know it can be done and sometimes is, but it is uncommon according to the lesbians I know. They will admit that in their relationships tongue on clitoris is the most common method followed by one woman wearing a strap on and assuming the male dominant role in the relationship.


Whatever flicks their boat...

I was just being ornery. As usual. :)

**************************************************

Slag, how about just admitting your faith teaches you it's bad, so you think that should be legislated for everyone else under Civil Law? Even if someone else's choice of faith teaches them otherwise. Can't you be that honest?

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about marriage. I'm talking about Civil Unions under civil law with zero Church involvement.

If it's all about reproduction, how can you not oppose infertile hetero couples as well without being a hypocrite?

Logical
09-22-2007, 03:05 PM
that would be natural for that species not the Human Race
...
If the Human Race was ment to Naturally engage in intercourse with those of the same sex then why do YOU not? Why is it the Exception not the rule?

First why do you assume it is not natural, being the less likely course of action does not make it unnatural.

Masturbation is actually the most likely sexual activity for people so based on that idea penis in vagina sex is not natural.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 03:07 PM
Why don't I? Because I'm not attracted to men. If I was or to both, I'd do as I'd see fit. Hell, it might have some advantages.

Someone to always watch sports with.
Double the wardrobe.
Never have to listen to absurd rambling on
Won't get all worked up if I don't call him next day

Whatever, I'm not gay, I love women, and it makes no sense for me to want to deny someone the chance to be happy and find someone they truly love.
Atleast that's what Jesus told me?

BTW, between Jesus and 12 disciples, its pretty much a statistical certainty that one of them was a 'mo.

Sully
09-22-2007, 03:10 PM
The argument is all fine and good till someone tries to say it's not "natural." It happens in nature, with humans and other animals, so that lone fact blows the "It's not natural" case out of the water.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:10 PM
You forgot, "IMO".

Again, as an infertile couple has zero probability of having children, and "every sex act should naturally be open to procreation", how does that not qualify as a "Gravely Disordered action"?

Again I ask:

Your belief that "every sexual act should naturally be open to procreation" is a "Religious" belief. Why should your view on that trump another persons Religious view in Civil Law?


as long as an Infertile Couple has sex with No A.B.C. then they would still be Open to the Possibility of Procreation even if the chance is slim to none. Hence the sex is not Gravely Disordered.

The FACT that Sexual Acts should be open to Procreation is once again found in the NATURAL order of things.. Men were not NATURALLY Born with condoms over thier penis, and women were not NATURALLY born with their body's thinking that they are pregnant when they are not... This is ARTIFICIAL Means that was Externally added into the sex act.

If something is Externally needed then it is not NATURAL as the sex act can be completed naturally without any external action, sure a Penis can be inserted naturally into an Anus but this was not the Natural Means, the Anus is an Exit not an Entrance, the Vagina has both an exit and Entrance.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 03:10 PM
I recently found out that for lesbians, fisting, is quite a very common thing and probably more prevalent than the whole strap-on- or at least a popular...


I digress...

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 03:11 PM
government shouldn't be guided by religion ....... period.


they shouldn't yea/nay marriage for anyone ... marriage is a religious thing and should be under the perview of the Church.


government = civil unions for everybody


Church can do whatever they want with marriage

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:13 PM
as long as an Infertile Couple has sex with No A.B.C. then they would still be Open to the Possibility of Procreation even if the chance is slim to none. Hence the sex is not Gravely Disordered.

The FACT that Sexual Acts should be open to Procreation is once again found in the NATURAL order of things.. Men were not NATURALLY Born with condoms over thier penis, and women were not NATURALLY born with their body's thinking that they are pregnant when they are not... This is ARTIFICIAL Means that was Externally added into the sex act.

If something is Externally needed then it is not NATURAL as the sex act can be completed naturally without any external action, sure a Penis can be inserted naturally into an Anus but this was not the Natural Means, the Anus is an Exit not an Entrance, the Vagina has both an exit and Entrance.

How about a couple where the Woman has had a Hysterectomy? Seems to me there's ZERO possibility of reproduction. :shrug:

Again, you fail to explain why the teachings of your choice of faith (sex should be solely for the possibility of reproduction) should be codified into civil law.

After all, plenty of people believe there is nothing unnatural about sex solely for pleasure. To a Wiccan, it's just another form of worshipping the Goddess. With or without Birth Control.

So again, why should your religious views trump someone else's under Civil law?

BTW- If you are so opposed to "unnatural things" I assume you eat your food uncooked. After all, it didn't "Naturally" exist that way. :p

Do you live in a house? How unnatural.

Do you wear clothes? You were not "Naturally" born with those either.


Seems to me you should at least be intellectually honest to admit that you don't think civil unions should be legalized is because your religion tells you it's bad, and you think everyone else should be made to live by that idea as well.

Logical
09-22-2007, 03:15 PM
I recently found out that for lesbians, fisting, is quite a very common thing and probably more prevalent than the whole strap-on- or at least a popular...


I digress...Ewwww

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:18 PM
How about a couple were the Woman has had a Hysterectomy? Seems to me there's ZERO possibility of reproduction. :shrug:

Again, you fail to explain why the teachings of your choice of faith (sex should be solely for the possibility of reproduction) should be codified into civil law.

After all, plenty of people believe there is nothing unnatural about sex solely for pleasure. To a Wiccan, it's just another form of worshipping the Goddess. With or without Birth Control.

So again, why should your religious views trump someone else's under civil law?

This argument isnt about why Procreative sex should be made into Law.

I suppose I could ask you the same question, why should their beliefs change the status quo?

we come to a point where neither can convince that one side is greater than the other so the Status quo must not be changed on a whim to passify the Homosexuals

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 03:20 PM
Humans clearly do not engage in sex simply for procreation.

Viagra, the Pill, condoms, spermicide, IUD's, abortion, day-after pill, pull-out method, vasectomy, tube tide.


The Egyptians used to use crocodile dung as a contraceptive, even! You wanna talk about some nasty p****!?

It's pretty obvious that humans have been finding ways of doing it and avoiding slipping one past the goalie for a long time?

Ever go anal on your wife? Does that make you 1/2 gay or just tired of the same old thing and trying to spice things up to keep the marriage interesting?

Also, dolphins engage in casual meaningless sex randomly all the time for fun.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:20 PM
This argument isnt about why Procreative sex should be made into Law.

Actually, you're the one whose been opposing it on those grounds.

I suppose I could ask you the same question, why should their beliefs change the status quo?

we come to a point where neither can convince that one side is greater than the other so the Status quo must not be changed on a whim to passify the Homosexuals

Seems to me it's already been established under the 14th amendment, as far as civil unions by the state are concerned. :shrug:

Nice way of you avoiding answering my questions, though. :clap:


Seems to me you should at least be intellectually honest to admit that you don't think civil unions should be legalized is because your religion tells you it's bad, and you think everyone else should be made to live by that ideal as well.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 03:28 PM
Why do you think people are gay, Slag?

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:33 PM
Why do you think people are gay, Slag?
I agree with the Catholic Teaching on this

"[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection".

I dont think that you should Neg-Rep Somone for stating their beliefs :rolleyes:

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 03:35 PM
I want you to answer my question. If you have this belief that you're superior to somebody, you should be able to actually explain why. I'm asking your opinion on why you think gays are gay. Is it a choice?

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:39 PM
I want you to answer my question. If you have this belief that you're superior to somebody, you should be able to actually explain why. I'm asking your opinion on why you think gays are gay. Is it a choice?

My Opinion is that we do not know all the reasons persons deem themselfs homosexual many reasons could include but are not limited to:
Molestation at a young age
Absent Parent
Genetic/DNA Deformation/Mutation
Acting out against ones upbringing
Other Resons not yet discovered
other kind of Physical or Mental Abuse

BucEyedPea
09-22-2007, 03:39 PM
I got a question....can a city do this or does it have to be the state of Cali?

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:40 PM
I want you to answer my question. If you have this belief that you're superior to somebody, you should be able to actually explain why. I'm asking your opinion on why you think gays are gay. Is it a choice?


IMO, it's pretty simple. He thinks he's found "The one true way". By definition, any other viewpoint is inferior.

It's the same fallacy many militant atheists fall into as well.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:41 PM
IMO, it's pretty simple. He KNOWS he's found "The one true way". By definition, any other viewpoint is inferior.

It's the same fallacy many militant atheists fall into as well.

fyp

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:44 PM
fyp

ROFL ROFL ROFL Whatever floats your boat.

I happen to "know" there is no such thing as the supernatural and that you are just deluded. :p

Actually, your correction and my statement are both FOS. Both our perspectives are based on faith, as we don't have shred of physical evidence either way.

Just don't try to pretend your opposition to civil unions for gays is based on anything other than your religious views (at least according to everything you've posted in this thread). Well, that and your apparent belief that your religious beliefs under the 1'st trump others views under the 1st and the equal protection clause under the 14'th. ;)

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 03:44 PM
My Opinion is that we do not know all the reasons persons deem themselfs homosexual many reasons could include but are not limited to:
Molestation at a young age
Absent Parent
Genetic/DNA Deformation/Mutation
Acting out against ones upbringing
Other Resons not yet discovered
other kind of Physical or Mental Abuse


So you don't even know yourself why they are the way they are, but you know they're just inferior? Why does scripture not know the truth? I thought your religion was all-knowing. I guess you don't need a reason to believe what you want.

Are you convinced that homosexuals actually are attracted to members of the opposite sex? Do you also believe they're generally turned off by members of the same sex, but are gay anyway?

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:47 PM
So you don't even know yourself why they are the way they are, but you know they're just inferior?

The hallmark of a "true believer". Whatever that belief may be.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 03:51 PM
So you don't even know yourself why they are the way they are, but you know they're just inferior? Why does scripture not know the truth? I thought your religion was all-knowing. I guess you don't need a reason to believe what you want.

Are you convinced that homosexuals actually are attracted to members of the opposite sex? Do you also believe they're generally turned off by members of the same sex, but are gay anyway?

I never stated that Homosexuals are Inferior as they are humans just like anyone else and deserve to be treated with Human diginity and respect, that does not mean I have to agree with their bedroom antics.

I'm not in here quoting scripture, Scripture was never the basis for my arugment if you want some bible verses i can throw some out at you but I feel it would serve no point here

In answer to your second question I reiterate that those that are homosexual are called to perfect Chastity if they wish to live a Christian Life.. if they do not want to be called christian I dont think they should force their beliefs into law either

Logical
09-22-2007, 03:54 PM
I got a question....can a city do this or does it have to be the state of Cali?a

Actually the city only is sponsoring a friend of the court brief that is in the courts on the subject.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 03:54 PM
if they do not want to be called christian I dont think they should force their beliefs into law either

Wow...just wow.

You actually believe a Citizen should not attempt to have a law passed or an injustice corrected just because they aren't christian?

The don't want to be called christian, so they should just sit down, shut up, and accept second class status under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? :shake:

So much for Freedom of Religion under civil law. Damn, I'm glad I can't even begin to comprehend that worldview.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 03:56 PM
I never stated that Homosexuals are Inferior as they are humans just like anyone else and deserve to be treated with Human diginity and respect, that does not mean I have to agree with their bedroom antics.

You called their behavior evil and unnatural. That's acting superior and it's certainly not treating anyone with dignity and respect. Particularly when you don't even know why they are the way they are.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2007, 03:56 PM
a

Actually the city only is sponsoring a friend of the court brief that is in the courts on the subject.
I see. Thanx.

SLAG
09-22-2007, 04:00 PM
Wow...just wow....

You actually believe a citizen should attempt to have a law passed or an injustice corrected just because they aren't christian?

The don't want to be called christian, so they should just sit down, shut up, and accept second class status under the 14th? :shake:

So much for Freedom of Religion under civil law.

Damn, I'm glad I can't even begin to comprehend a worldview like that.
you misunderstood my statement

I dont think that persons who live the homosexual lifestyle should be procted under the same laws as a Man and woman Married couple - Because not only of my religious beliefs but of the degrading effect it might/could/would have on society.

If I was an Modern day Aztec and still had to sacrafice virgins to make the sun rise every morning why shoudnt I be allowed to murder 1 virgin per day? Its my Religious Belief, I should have that right... no?

If Inherent in my Religion was to have 50 Wifes then why shouldn't we be protected under the Law as well?

SLAG
09-22-2007, 04:01 PM
You called their behavior evil and unnatural. That's acting superior and it's certainly not treating anyone with dignity and respect. Particularly when you don't even know why they are the way they are.

Their Sexual action are evil and unnatural, but that is not an Ad hominem attack on the person, just on the ACTION.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 04:02 PM
Their Sexual action are evil and unnatural, but that is not an Ad hominem attack on the person, just on the ACTION.

You are your actions. A serial killer is evil.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 04:05 PM
you misunderstood my statement

I dont think that persons who live the homosexual lifestyle should be procted under the same laws as a Man and woman Married couple - Because not only of my religious beliefs but of the degrading effect it might/could/would have on society.

If I was an Modern day Aztec and still had to sacrafice virgins to make the sun rise every morning why shoudnt I be allowed to murder 1 virgin per day? Its my Religious Belief, I should have that right... no?

If Inherent in my Religion was to have 50 Wifes then why shouldn't we be protected under the Law as well?

First homosexuality isn't a crime under US law. As much as some might hate that fact. PBJ PBJ PBJ

Murder, your second example is.

Polygamy, your third example is as well.

I think it would be difficult for you to prove the "degrading effect" it might/could/would have on society. Especially to the degrading level that Murder clearly is. Good luck with that, and a lovely job of moving the goalposts after your "it ain't natural" argument was shot full of holes. Again, you wern't born with clothes or a condom. Seems to me under that argument, one is as unnatural as the other.

As for your example of polygamy, as long as all involved are consenting adults I agree it should not be illegal. :eek:

As for me, I'll continue to believe that equal protection for Citizens under the 14th means all Citizens. Not just the ones living in a manner I personally agree with. Personally, I think most of the religious tight-asses of the world could do with a little Epicurian Hedonism but I certainly don't think that should be legislated.

There's a pretty clear difference here.

I'm saying "If you want to join in a civil union, that's fine. If you don't that's OK too. For all I care, you don't have to have anything to do with Gays at all. No one is forcing you to. Live and let live."

That's a pretty far cry from "I don't want you to be allowed to join in a civil union under civil law because my faith teaches me it's bad and will cause the collapse of society as we know it".

JMO.

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 04:21 PM
My Opinion is that we do not know all the reasons persons deem themselfs homosexual many reasons could include but are not limited to:
Molestation at a young age
Absent Parent
Genetic/DNA Deformation/Mutation
Acting out against ones upbringing
Other Resons not yet discovered
other kind of Physical or Mental Abuse

this IS the standard position of the religious right


so can we please at least get past the BS that the GOP isn't against homosexuality like some people insist.

|Zach|
09-22-2007, 04:26 PM
Yeah, they can. IMO they shouldn't though. Kids can be cruel SOBs.
I am sure there was a wave of same exact thinking when *gasp* black and white people started to get married.

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 04:27 PM
I am sure there was a wave of same exact thinking when *gasp* black and white people started to get married.

Still is today. The numbers drop a little more each generation though. All that inbreeding, IMO.

|Zach|
09-22-2007, 04:28 PM
BTW, I still don't see how you get to "wacko leftist nutjob KKK of the gay rights movement" from "I support gay marriage."
It is Rob.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 04:28 PM
I am sure there was a wave of same exact thinking when *gasp* black and white people started to get married.

Wait till you read a little deeper into this topic.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 04:36 PM
I got a question....can a city do this or does it have to be the state of Cali?

Any body of government can pass a law or ordinance they want so longer as its not in violation with any higher body of government. So, a city can pass any law so long as, say, the state doesn't have a law that conflicts with the city's law, either legislatively passed or under the state constitution. Then, all state laws, no matter their origin must still comply with Federal Law and the Federal Constitution / Bill of Rights.
In reality, the constitution has very broad deferment of powers to the states on it's face, but over time, judicial decisions and legislative enactment have built a fairly detailed road map for Federal law being the supreme king. This is where so many landmark changes have come, based upon judicial interpretation of the above sources. Courts will look at the literal text as it is written (wording truly does make a difference), the spirit of the law, as what they think was implied.

When looking at a new law passed, courts will look at all of the above as well as the legislative notes that are included usually as subnotes in the bill or law. If the central issue of the case can not be determined based on this, a court may defer (find for the defendant) under the rationale that if their decision is not what the legislature seeks, they can pass further legislation so in the future the prior ruling will be different. Other courts may find for the plaintiff, and if the legislature doesn't like the outcome they can do the same as above to ensure the prior case will not have holding on any future cases. This is sometimes seen as "legislating from the bench," which many people in law aren't big fans of. Classic case of this was the 2000 Supreme Court Presidential controversy and the court rendering a decision, but really there was nothing that could be done otherwise, and FL decided to get their ass in gear and fix their own f*ckup.

States can pass referendums that are not considered "laws" but public initiatives brought by the people and not legislatively introduced. They can conflict with Fed laws but can't be actively enforced by the state . Medical weed in California is one of those examples. States can't help facilitate it, really, but they can basically look the other way. Federal law enforcement can still come after you for it, though. It's a gray situation...

I dont think that you should Neg-Rep Somone for stating their beliefs :rolleyes:

Agreed, no one should neg rep you for you beliefs, but the whole rep system is pretty much a pat on the back b/c I agree w/ your take system. So, whatever..


You did list a number of reason's for why people are gay, but it seems to me that its seems like its pretty much God's will. For whatever reason, he created a condition where people are attracted to the same sex. This is a lifestyle that does not hurt anyone. It's 2 consenting people choosing to do what they find natural. It's not like a serial killer doing what comes natural, b/c no one is being harmed. I'm sorry I even had to equate the two, b/c my point is the "evil" you speak of doesn't harm you or anyone else, and there's no more likelihood of gay people committing sexually devious acts than straight people.

You'd think a group of people that never procreate would kill itself off, odd how it seems to still be around, naturally, since the beginning of time.

|Zach|
09-22-2007, 04:37 PM
Wait till you read a little deeper into this topic.
More Slagness...its no big deal. He doesn't care what goes in one ear and out the other.

Guy hasn't had an original thought on this board yet.

XXXshogunXXX
09-22-2007, 04:41 PM
that is gay

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 04:54 PM
that is gay
ROFL

like one of those pictures of a picture of a picture

Bowser
09-22-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm confused -

Is it God that doesn't like homosexuals, or is it the church?

StcChief
09-22-2007, 05:22 PM
I'm confused -

Is it God that doesn't like homosexuals, or is it the church?

I remember something in the Bible about NOT laying with another man.

Ask the folks by the Dead Sea which is full of SALT....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

go bowe
09-22-2007, 05:26 PM
I'm more like a tea kettle. When I blow, I blow hard.well then, i bet your customers are very satisfied with your services...

Bowser
09-22-2007, 05:30 PM
I remember something in the Bible about NOT laying with another man.

Ask the folks by the Dead Sea which is full of SALT....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


Pffft. If it were about immorality, Amersterdam and Tijuanna would have been wiped out years ago.

And I guess the bible doesn't carry much weight with the church, with the church having to pay out all that money for priests raping little boys, and all....


(I'm popping some popcorn. Anyone want some?)

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 05:32 PM
I remember something in the Bible about NOT laying with another man.

Ask the folks by the Dead Sea which is full of SALT....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

:rolleyes:

Yeah, in Leviticus with all the nonsense about not wearing cloth woven from two different types of fiber, stoning a child that talks back to you, and keeping the Sabbath (Saturday!) holy.

All the others were tossed out by the "New Covenant" according to the Christian pastors I've talked with.

Yet some seem to make an exception for that one, IMO because they find gays icky.

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 05:38 PM
11:4"‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 11:5 The coney, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 11:6 The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn’t part the hoof, she is unclean to you. 11:7 The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn’t chew the cud, he is unclean to you. 11:8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.



pick and choose ..... pick and choose

Bowser
09-22-2007, 05:40 PM
11:4"‘Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 11:5 The coney, because he chews the cud but doesn’t have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 11:6 The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn’t part the hoof, she is unclean to you. 11:7 The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn’t chew the cud, he is unclean to you. 11:8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.



pick and choose ..... pick and choose

Well, there goes tomorrow's tailgate menu.

Jilly
09-22-2007, 05:41 PM
I'm confused -

Is it God that doesn't like homosexuals, or is it the church?

it's the people in some churches, not all of them. It's definitely not God.

Bowser
09-22-2007, 05:43 PM
it's the people in some churches, not all of them. It's definitely not God.

I always love the serious answer to the tongue-in-cheek questions. :D

And, don't let SLAG see that answer. He might pop a fuse.

Logical
09-22-2007, 05:49 PM
Well, there goes tomorrow's tailgate menu.ROFL

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 05:51 PM
Well, there goes tomorrow's tailgate menu.

ROFL

You shouldn't go anyway. The Sabbath is strictly for worship!

Ummm.....I don't know if it's Saturday (Sabbath in Leviticus) or Sunday though.

Maybe it's just College Football on Saturday you should avoid in order to keep to "The Word".

Bowser
09-22-2007, 05:53 PM
ROFL

You shouldn't go anyway. The Sabbath is strictly for worship!

Ummm.....I don't know if it's Saturday (Sabbath in Leviticus) or Sunday though.

Maybe it's just College Football on Saturday you should avoid in order to keep to "The Word".

Ah-HAA! My ace in the hole - The International Date Line! Yeah, it's Sunday when the Chiefs play, but it's Monday somewhere!

Jilly
09-22-2007, 06:08 PM
I always love the serious answer to the tongue-in-cheek questions. :D

And, don't let SLAG see that answer. He might pop a fuse.

you know what? :banghead: THAT'S how I feel about THAT!! oh and throw in one of these - :whackit:

Adept Havelock
09-22-2007, 06:29 PM
Ah-HAA! My ace in the hole - The International Date Line! Yeah, it's Sunday when the Chiefs play, but it's Monday somewhere!

Just like taxes. The more arbitrary rules people make, the more people will look for a way around them. :)

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2007, 06:37 PM
The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

Ladies and Gentleman, a tautology. It's your belief, but it's also completely full of shit


-------------------------------------------------------------


The kids are all right

Research shows that families headed by gay and lesbian parents are as healthy as traditional families, but misperceptions linger.

By Sadie F. Dingfelder
Monitor Staff
Print version: page 66

Most of the parenting challenges Steven James, PhD, faces are pretty ordinary. For one, James's usually studious son Greg, 9, has recently been refusing to do his geography homework. "He's just not that interested in memorizing states and capitals," says James, who chairs the psychology and counseling program at Vermont's Goddard College.

However, as gay parents, James and his partner, Todd Herrmann, PhD, have some fears that don't keep most other parents up at night. The biggest one, says James, is that their sons, Greg and Max, 4, might be taken away from them if they travel to a hostile place. James and Herrmann's adoption of the two boys is not legally recognized in 11 states and many countries, and as a result they can't safely visit one set of grandparents.

"My dad and his wife were here to visit a few months ago and they asked: ‘Why not bring the boys to Oklahoma?' I had to explain: ‘Your laws don't respect our adoption. Your state could put the boys into foster homes without any say from me or you,'" says James.

Families such as the James-Hermanns and the challenges they face are becoming increasingly common in the United States. The 2000 U.S. census estimated that 163,879 households with children were headed by same-sex couples. That number is likely to be much larger today, says Charlotte Patterson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

"More people are choosing to start families in the context of a gay or lesbian identity," she says.

Additionally, the census fails to count the perhaps millions of families where a single gay parent heads the household, says Judith E. Snow, a Michigan-based therapist and author of the book "How It Feels to Have a Gay or Lesbian Parent" (Harrington Park Press, 2004).

But while gay- and lesbian-headed families face a slate of challenges that more traditional families avoid–from legal hassles and homophobia to everyday tasks, such as figuring out how to fill out school forms–research shows that the children with gay or lesbian parents do as well as children with heterosexual parents. Having a gay or lesbian parent doesn't affect a child's social adjustment, school success or sexual orientation, say researchers.

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with good parenting," notes Armand Cerbone, PhD, who reviewed research on gay and lesbian parenting as chair of APA's Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships.

Challenging assumptions

Unfortunately, many people are not aware of the three decades of research showing that children of gay or lesbian parents are just as mentally healthy as children with heterosexual parents, notes Cerbone. One such study, published in Child Development (Vol. 75, No. 6, pages 1,886–1,898) in 2004, compares a group of 44 teenagers with same-sex couples as parents with an equal number of teenagers with opposite-sex couples as parents. All participants were part of a national, randomly selected sample of teenagers from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

"There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson, who conducted the research with students Jennifer Wainright and Stephen Russell, PhD, now an associate professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates. However, says Patterson, the difference was small and needs to be studied further.

Patterson's study debunks the myth that children of gay or lesbian parents have trouble developing romantic relationships due to a missing father- or mother-figure–a concern that judges making custody rulings have cited. Equal numbers of teenagers from each group reported that they had been in a romantic relationship in the previous 18 months. Participants from the two groups did not differ in grade point average, symptoms of depression or self-esteem.

While the sexual orientation of the parents in Patterson's study did not predict the adolescents' social adjustment, the quality of the parent-child relationship did. Children who reported warm relationships with their parents tended to be the most mentally healthy and have the fewest problems in school.

Patterson's and others' findings that good parenting, not a parent's sexual orientation, leads to mentally healthy children may not surprise many psychologists. What may be more surprising is the finding that children of same-sex couples seem to be thriving, though they live in a world that is often unaccepting of their parents.

In fact, an as-yet-unpublished study by Nanette Gartrell, MD, found that by age 10, about half of children with lesbian mothers have been targeted for homophobic teasing by their peers. Those children tended to report more psychological distress than those untouched by homophobia.

But as a group, the children of lesbian moms are just as well-adjusted as children from more traditional families, according to the data from Gartrell's National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. The resilience of the children may, in part, come from their parents' efforts to protect them and prepare them for facing homophobia, says Gartrell, a University of California, San Francisco, psychiatry professor.

"In order to create a homophobia-free space for these children, the moms have had to educate their pediatricians, their child-care workers," says Gartrell. "They are active in the school system and make sure there are training modules in the schools that support diversity including LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] families. All this is on top of the usual 24-7 commitment to parenting."

Sources of support

Many gay and lesbian parents pull off this feat by plugging into informal support networks, notes Jane Ariel, PhD, a clinician with many gay and lesbian clients, and also a psychology professor at the Wright Institute in Berkeley. Lesbian and gay parents may also look to therapists for help navigating the typical demands of parenthood and the special demands of being a gay parent, she notes.

Psychologists can be particularly helpful if they tune into what some of that extra work entails, says Ariel (see sidebar). Researchers, too, can ameliorate the challenges such families face by continuing to dispel myths about lesbian and gay parents and by educating the public about their findings, notes Cerbone.

Support can also come in the form of gay parents' groups that meet regularly to socialize, trade parenting tips and share information about gay-friendly schools and doctors, says Ariel.

"There is often a very strong, intimate connection with an extended of group of people who become like family and serve some of the same purposes," says Ariel.

The James-Hermanns plugged into such a group through their local Unitarian Universalist church.

"Surrounding ourselves with other gay-dad families has been enormously helpful," says James.

National groups, such as Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere (COLAGE) and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) can also help children with gay or lesbian parents learn how to handle homophobia from their peers, notes Judith Snow. In fact, in her work as a therapist, Snow encourages gay and lesbian parents and their children to tap into COLAGE or similar support networks.

"What these groups do is normalize the whole thing by showing kids they aren't alone and helping them learn the skills to cope with having gay or lesbian parents in a homophobic world," says Snow.

From nagging his kids about homework to teaching them how to confront homophobia, being a gay dad is a lot of work, says James. However, it's also a lot of fun, he says.

"Watching the boys grow and develop into these amazing little people–it has been an incredible experience," he says.

Children of gay and lesbian parents may enrich more than just their parents' lives, says Gartrell.

"The kids I've interviewed are enormously thoughtful–they are not only sensitive to discrimination to their groups but other groups as well," she says. "This is something LGBT families have to offer the world."

listopencil
09-22-2007, 07:06 PM
However, as gay parents, James and his partner, Todd Herrmann, PhD, have some fears that don't keep most other parents up at night. The biggest one, says James, is that their sons, Greg and Max, 4, might be taken away from them if they travel to a hostile place. James and Herrmann's adoption of the two boys is not legally recognized in 11 states and many countries, and as a result they can't safely visit one set of grandparents.




See-that's ****ed up. It's not right, it's not moral, it's not what I think this country is all about. I imagine the chance is slim that their kids would get taken away unless some local douchebag is trying to make a name for himself but the possibility is there. That means that the parents' fear is there. And say what you will about a gay couple not being true "parents" but the notion of family in this society is far reaching and inclusive, as it needs to be. This is the new Civil Rights movement. How will you respond, as a heterosexual American? I've always believed that you can tell a lot about a man by the way he defends the liberties of others when he has nothing to gain. It shames me as a citizen that these people are being persecuted in my country.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 07:17 PM
The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

Simple. Biological. Facts.

I'm not a 'gay basher'...but truth is truth.

Throw out the Bible, throw out personal feelings...nobody on EARTH has 2 mommies/daddies...deal with it people.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 07:21 PM
Simple. Biological. Facts.

I'm not a 'gay basher'...but truth is truth.

Throw out the Bible, throw out personal feelings...nobody on EARTH has 2 mommies/daddies...deal with it people.


half the kids don't have 1 mommy or daddy. See deadbeat parents, and divorce. But, okay...

I think God would much rather have a child provided for in a loving home. Gay parents aren't going to make their kids gay, just maybe more accepting of the fact that you can't plug everyone into the All American family home ideal.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 07:23 PM
Simple. Biological. Facts.

I'm not a 'gay basher'...but truth is truth.

Throw out the Bible, throw out personal feelings...nobody on EARTH has 2 mommies/daddies...deal with it people.

Again, we're talking about kids who are being adopted. They don't have one mommy or one daddy to begin with.

Would you rather they have one or two gay parents who could provide them with a good life or would you rather they have no parents at all?

Spott
09-22-2007, 07:27 PM
Would you rather they have one or two gay parents who could provide them with a good life or would you rather they have no parents at all?

As long as both of the moms were hot, I would be all for it.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 07:40 PM
Again, we're talking about kids who are being adopted. They don't have one mommy or one daddy to begin with.

Would you rather they have one or two gay parents who could provide them with a good life or would you rather they have no parents at all?

Admittedly, i havent read the entire thread.

But, much like Phobia, i'm old fashioned about some things & raising kids is one of them.

Maybe they should be adopted to straight parents, perhaps they would find the needed love & support in a foster home until they reach adulthood.

For me it comes down to this, while i believe that this is America & people should be allowed to pursue any lifestyle they choose (as long as it doesnt affect others)...i & most of the rest of America believe that at the base level there is something inherently wrong with that lifestyle being upheld as a positive norm for kids.

To say that it wouldnt encourage a gay, permissive lifestyle in kids is being VERY disingenuos. It works for mommie & mommie...why not me???

You guys can slam me & 3/4 of the rest of the country all you want, its not going to change me or, im sure, 'them'.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 07:57 PM
Admittedly, i havent read the entire thread.

But, much like Phobia, i'm old fashioned about some things & raising kids is one of them.

Maybe they should be adopted to straight parents, perhaps they would find the needed love & support in a foster home until they reach adulthood.

For me it comes down to this, while i believe that this is America & people should be allowed to pursue any lifestyle they choose (as long as it doesnt affect others)...i & most of the rest of America believe that at the base level there is something inherently wrong with that lifestyle being upheld as a positive norm for kids.

To say that it wouldnt encourage a gay lifestyle in kids is being VERY disingenuos. It works for mommie & mommie...why not me???

You guys can slam me & 3/4 of the rest of the country all you want, its not going to change me or, im sure, 'them'.

No fault in being honest, and I will say that a happy home with a mom and dad would probably be ideal in giving kids a full experience of dealing with both sexes to a degree, but there's just no way I buy the idea of someone growing up and saying to themselves, "it works for mommy and mommy, so why not me"?

People are either straight, gay, or bi. I don't think having gay parents is going to dissuade one's internal persuasion. Every person on here probably has at least some salient memory of their 1st crush, or the when they recognized they were attracted to some one else. I, personally, knew from a VERY VERY young age that I was mesmerized by the opposite sex. In kindergarten I had 2 "girlfriends", one blonde and one brunette. I know it's pretty comical and what not, but my drive to seek the attention of women was without a doubt a simple natural instinct. No one told me and I didn't learn from anyone, that experience that every young straight boy has at some point in their life- the feeling you get when a girl you like smiles at you in a subtle, giddy, "the feeling's mutual, but what all does this mean way."

You can always be taught social skills and what not, but basic instincts, such as sexual drive, are primitive drives.

Man may be enlightened, but he is still just another animal.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 08:08 PM
No fault in being honest, and I will say that a happy home with a mom and dad would probably be ideal in giving kids a full experience of dealing with both sexes to a degree, but there's just no way I buy the idea of someone growing up and saying to themselves, "it works for mommy and mommy, so why not me"?

People are either straight, gay, or bi. I don't think having gay parents is going to dissuade one's internal persuasion. Every person on here probably has at least some salient memory of their 1st crush, or the when they recognized they were attracted to some one else. I, personally, knew from a VERY VERY young age that I was mesmerized by the opposite sex. In kindergarten I had 2 "girlfriends", one blonde and one brunette. I know it's pretty comical and what not, but my drive to seek the attention of women was without a doubt a simple natural instinct. No one told me and I didn't learn from anyone, that experience that every young straight boy has at some point in their life- the feeling you get when a girl you like smiles at you in a subtle, giddy, "the feeling's mutual, but what all does this mean way."

You can always be taught social skills and what not, but basic instincts, such as sexual drive, are primitive drives.

Man may be enlightened, but he is still just another animal.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply & not a bunch of put-downs.

But everything i've ever read or watched on the subject says that impressionable kids, can be, influenced to one side/degree or another.

I know exactly what you mean about natural impulses, thats why in pre-school i knocked a crayon off of the table so i could crawl down & get a look up the teachers dress (white panties w/ blue seagulls on'em). But i dont think that all kids are so hardwired. I think some kids are confused about themselves & a gay parent would be the tipping point.

DaneMcCloud
09-22-2007, 08:26 PM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.

Well it happens in California every day with out incident, though I assume that's "unheard of" in Nebraska. Not surprising.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe it's just going to be "some" bullying. Any childs life in that situation would be a living hell. Perhaps someday we may get to the point where that's not the case, but we're sure as heck not there yet.

Living hell? WTF? ALL of the gay parent that I know are EXTREMELY successful. Like $500k per year or more. These children are privy to private schools, amazing neighborhoods and loving parents.

Children only behave the way they're taught to behave. Fortunately, I don't know of any circumstances similar to your fear.

Are you going to deny homosexuality carries a greater stigma than someone of mixed races?

Stigma? Where the f*ck do you live or should I say, what time period? There are "mixed" race children all over the country that don't deal with any "stigma". Apparently though, that "stigma" still exists in Nebraska. Not surprising.

You're putting words in my mouth, where on earth did I say it was ok in a mixed-race situation? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this, but I'm neither mixed race nor was I raised by gay parents so I honestly don't know if one would be truly worse than the other. I do believe we've come a lot farther when it comes to race than we have with homosexuality in this country, therefore the mixed race should less likely be a problem.

Problem. Heh. YOU and people like YOU are the problem.

The fact that kids might be picked upon for having gay "parents" is pretty low down my list of reasons why gays shouldn't be awarded children. Gay parents shouldn't be allowed to raise kids because parents are male and female. Even the term "Gay Parents" is an oxymoron. Gay parental figures can't be parents because they're simply not equipped to be parents. I'm no expert on this but it's my opinion. I don't care if it's PC or popular or what. I just don't feel it's right.

I like you very much, Mr. Phobia but I'm quite shocked at this response. I guess if I'd never come face-to-face with caring, kind, intelligent and successful gay couples, I might feel the same way. But trust me, it's better for these children live with loving parents of the same sex than live in foster care or an orphanage.

Keep in mind that not just any homosexual person or couple is going to want to adopt. It's very expensive to adopt a child and it's even more difficult for gays to go through the screening process. It's safe to say that gay couples who adopt want to raise a child as much or more than straight couple who adopt.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 08:35 PM
Admittedly, i havent read the entire thread.

But, much like Phobia, i'm old fashioned about some things & raising kids is one of them.

Maybe they should be adopted to straight parents, perhaps they would find the needed love & support in a foster home until they reach adulthood.

For me it comes down to this, while i believe that this is America & people should be allowed to pursue any lifestyle they choose (as long as it doesnt affect others)...i & most of the rest of America believe that at the base level there is something inherently wrong with that lifestyle being upheld as a positive norm for kids.

To say that it wouldnt encourage a gay, permissive lifestyle in kids is being VERY disingenuos. It works for mommie & mommie...why not me???

You guys can slam me & 3/4 of the rest of the country all you want, its not going to change me or, im sure, 'them'.

I highly doubt 3/4ths of the country opposes gay adoption.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 08:35 PM
Well it happens in California every day with out incident, though I assume that's "unheard of" in Nebraska. Not surprising.



Living hell? WTF? ALL of the gay parent that I know are EXTREMELY successful. Like $500k per year or more. These children are privy to private schools, amazing neighborhoods and loving parents.

Children only behave the way they're taught to behave. Fortunately, I don't know of any circumstances similar to your fear.



Stigma? Where the f*ck do you live or should I say, what time period? There are "mixed" race children all over the country that don't deal with any "stigma". Apparently though, that "stigma" still exists in Nebraska. Not surprising.



Problem. Heh. YOU and people like YOU are the problem.



I like you very much, Mr. Phobia but I'm quite shocked at this response. I guess if I'd never come face-to-face with caring, kind, intelligent and successful gay couples, I might feel the same way. But trust me, it's better for these children live with loving parents of the same sex than live in foster care or an orphanage.

Keep in mind that not just any homosexual person or couple is going to want to adopt. It's very expensive to adopt a child and it's even more difficult for gays to go through the screening process. It's safe to say that gay couples who adopt want to raise a child as much or more than straight couple who adopt.

Dane, your incredibly snide responses to Bugs thoughts do not do you any favors.

Maybe you've been gone too long, but the midwest could hardly be more different from Cali...i mean, like polar opposites, and honestly California is NOT the moral compass of America...especially southern Cal. The views ARE different here, the people ARE different here...that may be negative for you, but thats the way it is.

I dont have a problem with you Dane, but southern Cal might as well be a foreign country...its THAT different from the rest of the America.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 08:37 PM
I highly doubt 3/4ths of the country opposes gay adoption.

I disagree strongly, but neither of us has any concrete facts to prove our stance.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 08:38 PM
Thanks for a thoughtful reply & not a bunch of put-downs.

But everything i've ever read or watched on the subject says that impressionable kids, can be, influenced to one side/degree or another.

I know exactly what you mean about natural impulses, thats why in pre-school i knocked a crayon off of the table so i could crawl down & get a look up the teachers dress (white panties w/ blue seagulls on'em). But i dont think that all kids are so hardwired. I think some kids are confused about themselves & a gay parent would be the tipping point.


Exactly. It's a common human response to say, everyone else is so susceptible to influence, but I'm not like that. Studies and people in advertising will attest to this. It's a natural response for people to feel they are above being swayed where they think the general populous will be. Truth is, you knew you were attracted to women.

Why is it so far-reaching to assume that gay people share the exact same experience, just towards the same sex?

Those that are confused are more likely the product of feeling social pressure from societal norms and/or their family to come out. Being ostracized is a very powerful deterrent, and probably causes more confusion than anything running through one's hardwiring.

There will be, of course, a segment of persons that are truly bisexual, or have gender identity issues that takes a long process of discovery and self-evaluation to fully figure out their place in life, and how they can best find a happy medium in life. A lot of people will simply see them as odd or unstable, but from a humanistic point of view, imagine the uncertainty and struggle they have to endure. No one likes to feel like they are on an island without any sense of direction, especially when your life path has little to no point of reference to help guide you.

I know gender-bending unsettles a lot of people, and even I will admit, its not an area that when confronted I'm just like, hey whatever. The reality is most people are unsettled by it, and its not wrong to have that reaction, but if you truly hold the idea of the pursuit of happiness as a strong value, you should at the least respect their life. I'm not expecting or pointing fingers at anyone, but if one took the time to sit down and pick anyone's brain that leads a different lifestyle, you might actually understanding it a bit better. Humanizing a group, race, or what not really can have a lasting impact in overcoming preconceived notions, ideals, and stereotypes.

We're all at fault in different aspects of our lives in propagating a less than perfect world, but those that at least make an attempt to explore and understand different viewpoints can at least not be accused of not attempting to better understand. At the end of the day, if you still can't grasp or accept it, I think one's is fully entitled to their opinion, so long as they aren't interfering in another's life in ways that they, themselves, are given full reign to chose to enjoy and live.

DaneMcCloud
09-22-2007, 08:39 PM
Dane, your incredibly snide responses to Bugs thoughts do not do you any favors.

Maybe you've been gone too long, but the midwest could hardly be more different from Cali...i mean, like polar opposites, and honestly California is NOT the moral compass of America...especially southern Cal. The views ARE different here, the people ARE different here...that may be negative for you, but thats the way it is.

I dont have a problem with you Dane, but southern Cal might as well be a foreign country...its THAT different from the rest of the America.

Then I guess you better add NYC, Miami, Seattle and San Fran to your equation as well.

Trust, I'm all too familiar with the close-minded mentality of the plain states.

And it has nothing to do with morality.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 08:41 PM
I disagree strongly, but neither of us has any concrete facts to prove our stance.

It's legal in all but one state for a gay or lesbian person to adopt a kid. What difference does it make to you if that person happens to be in a relationship?

Mr. Flopnuts
09-22-2007, 08:44 PM
Then I guess you better add NYC, Miami, Seattle and San Fran to your equation as well.

Trust, I'm all too familiar with the close-minded mentality of the plain states.

And it has nothing to do with morality.



I don't think we agree about much Dane, but we agree here I'm sure. I haven't even read this thread, but I can guess that you're here championing gay peoples rights to marry. I say why not? How does it affect you (you being the collective conscious of society) personally? Fact is, it doesn't. We just like telling people how they should live their lives. It's the American way no? Don't spout off about the message it sends kids either. We have plenty of stuff in society that we shield them from everyday. Teaching them that all people deserve the same respect should be paramount, unfortunately, it's just not.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 08:45 PM
Exactly. It's a common human response to say, everyone else is so susceptible to influence, but I'm not like that. Studies and people in advertising will attest to this. It's a natural response for people to feel they are above being swayed where they think the general populous will be. Truth is, you knew you were attracted to women.

Why is it so far-reaching to assume that gay people share the exact same experience, just towards the same sex?

Those that are confused are more likely the product of feeling social pressure from societal norms and/or their family to come out. Being ostracized is a very powerful deterrent, and probably causes more confusion than anything running through one's hardwiring.

There will be, of course, a segment of persons that are truly bisexual, or have gender identity issues that takes a long process of discovery and self-evaluation to fully figure out their place in life, and how they can best find a happy medium in life. A lot of people will simply see them as odd or unstable, but from a humanistic point of view, imagine the uncertainty and struggle they have to endure. No one likes to feel like they are on an island without any sense of direction, especially when your life path has little to no point of reference to help guide you.

I know gender-bending unsettles a lot of people, and even I will admit, its not an area that when confronted I'm just like, hey whatever. The reality is most people are unsettled by it, and its not wrong to have that reaction, but if you truly hold the idea of the pursuit of happiness as a strong value, you should at the least respect their life. I'm not expecting or pointing fingers at anyone, but if one took the time to sit down and pick anyone's brain that leads a different lifestyle, you might actually understanding it a bit better. Humanizing a group, race, or what not really can have a lasting impact in overcoming preconceived notions, ideals, and stereotypes.

We're all at fault in different aspects of our lives in propagating a less than perfect world, but those that at least make an attempt to explore and understand different viewpoints can at least not be accused of not attempting to better understand. At the end of the day, if you still can't grasp or accept it, I think one's is fully entitled to their opinion, so long as they aren't interfering in another's life in ways that they, themselves, are given full reign to chose to enjoy and live.

I agree with a bunch of this & not so much with the rest.

Nonetheless, a VERY well thought out & intelligent reply...thanks.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 08:46 PM
Dane,

Your response is no more tolerant that those that oppose gay marriage or adoption. Making broad generalizations about people simply based upon location is just as stereotypical.

Taking an equally cut and dry approach to those unaccepting simply makes you just as unaccepting to other's right to their opinion.

If you really want to cause other's to reexamine their viewpoints, it will never be done by fighting venom with venom.

It is true though, that most gay couples that adopt or have kids are blue chip earners, usually highly educated. It's not like they are putting the kids to bed and rushing off to the nearest gay bar that is having a foam party to party down.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 08:55 PM
Then I guess you better add NYC, Miami, Seattle and San Fran to your equation as well.

Trust, I'm all too familiar with the close-minded mentality of the plain states.

And it has nothing to do with morality.

Dane, what you call close-minded, many if not most Americans call morally right.

The simple act of labeling them the 'plain states', speaks to your disdain for the region that raised you.

Honestly, i'll take the plainness of the midwest over much of the morally bankrupt horseshit i discovered while living in So-Cal.

I'm not here to declare i'm totally in the right, i am here to declare that just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong...and of course you could say the same of me.

Suffice it to say, nobody wins this argument & never will.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 09:09 PM
Dane, what you call close-minded, many if not most Americans call morally right.

*minds business and doesn't bring up slavery*

It's a necessary evil, guys!

Logical
09-22-2007, 09:09 PM
Dane, what you call close-minded, many if not most Americans call morally right.

The simple act of labeling them the 'plain states', speaks to your disdain for the region that raised you.

Honestly, i'll take the plainness of the midwest over much of the morally bankrupt horseshit i discovered while living in So-Cal.

I'm not here to declare i'm totally in the right, i am here to declare that just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong...and of course you could say the same of me.

Suffice it to say, nobody wins this argument & never will.

Scott, when I grew up the geography class referred to them as the Plain States in the text. I am pretty sure that is not a derogatory term, just a descriptor.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 09:11 PM
*minds business and doesn't bring up slavery*

It's a necessary evil, guys!

And your equating my posts with a pro-slavery stance how???

:rolleyes:

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 09:12 PM
Scott, when I grew up the geography class referred to them as the Plain States in the text. I am pretty sure that is not a derogatory term, just a descriptor.

Fair enough.

I thought it should be 'plains' states.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 09:18 PM
And your equating my posts with a pro-slavery stance how???

:rolleyes:

I'm attacking your point that something must be right if most of the country believes it to be morally acceptable/unacceptable.

Ugly Duck
09-22-2007, 09:22 PM
The Natural order is for Penis in Vagina, not Penis in Anus, not Vagina on Vagina

One word.... Bonobo

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 09:23 PM
I'm attacking your point that something must be right if most of the country believes it to be morally acceptable/unacceptable.

Well, i certainly feel that there is a LOT of difference between enslaving an entire people & destroying their families & heritage...& denying a gay couple the right to raise a child.

If you cant create one...why should you be allowed to raise one???

And dont gimme the hoo-ha about infertile people, thats WAY different IMO.

Logical
09-22-2007, 09:25 PM
One word.... BonoboDammit Duck you made me look that up. :LOL:

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 09:25 PM
Well, i certainly feel that there is a LOT of difference between enslaving an entire people & destroying their families & heritage...& denying a gay couple the right to raise a child.

I know you say that and I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm accusing your reasoning of being flawed BECAUSE evidence in the past.

If you cant create one...why should you be allowed to raise one???

And dont gimme the hoo-ha about infertile people, thats WAY different IMO.

Why's it different?

And shouldn't single people be allowed to adopt?

Ugly Duck
09-22-2007, 09:36 PM
Dammit Duck you made me look that up. :LOL:

Oh, sorry.... for the less educated Planeteers, Bonobos are our closest primate relatives. In their society, lesbian sexual encounters occur about every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages. Gayest dang animals on the planet are our closest relatives. Its only natural.....

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 09:37 PM
I know you say that and I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm accusing your reasoning of being flawed BECAUSE evidence in the past.



Why's it different?

And shouldn't single people be allowed to adopt?

Man, we can argue semantics 'til 4am.

As simply as i can put it, i dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle..are they all a bunch of creeps & pedophiles??? of course not, i've known a few who i considered to be very nice, caring people.

But that doesnt mean i feel they should be raising & in turn imparting their chosen lifestyle on impressionable kids. I'm actually in favor of gay marriage & the rights that come with it... just not the raising kids part.

Some say it doesnt influence kids, i disagree.

I've said my peace, i'm out of this DC style morass of neverending argument.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 09:38 PM
"Sexual social behavior

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in Bonobo society, being used as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconciliation, and as favors traded by the females in exchange for food. Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex.[15] In scientific literature, the female-female sex is often referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing, while male-male sex is sometimes referred to as penis fencing."

Hot.

Ugly Duck
09-22-2007, 09:40 PM
Hot.

Yes... but should they be allowed to adopt?

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 09:41 PM
As simply as i can put it, i dont agree with the homosexual lifestyle..are they all a bunch of creeps & pedophiles??? of course not, i've known a few who i considered to be very nice, caring people.

Then what makes you as an individual more suited to raise a kid than one of them?

But that doesnt mean i feel they should be raising & in turn imparting their chosen lifestyle on impressionable kids.

You chose to be heterosexual because your parents were?

And this is ignoring the fact that an overwhelming majority of current homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents.

Ultra Peanut
09-22-2007, 09:47 PM
As someone who subscribes to a religion that requires at least three to five acts of fellatio and/or cunnilingus per year, I find SLAG's persecution heinous and disturbing.

One word.... BonoboOh hey, you've heard of the International Church of the Divine Bonobo.

Seriously, those things are awesome. It's like the chimps got the asshole gene and bonobos got the "sure dude, whatever" gene.

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 09:49 PM
half the kids don't have 1 mommy or daddy. See deadbeat parents, and divorce. But, okay...

I think God would much rather have a child provided for in a loving home. Gay parents aren't going to make their kids gay, just maybe more accepting of the fact that you can't plug everyone into the All American family home ideal.
it's all about the Bible ....... i don't care how much you try and cover up you subconscious connection.


the whole "wrongness" stems from religion ....... everything else is just rationalizing.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 09:58 PM
it's all about the Bible ....... i don't care how much you try and cover up you subconscious connection.


the whole "wrongness" stems from religion ....... everything else is just rationalizing.

Wrong Laz, for me, the 'wrongness' stems from simple biology.

I said i was out & keep getting pulled back in... :banghead:

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 10:00 PM
Wrong Laz, for me, the 'wrongness' stems from simple biology.

I said i was out & keep getting pulled back in... :banghead:

What's wrong? That it doesn't lead to procreation? Neither do blowjobs. And we should prolly just outlaw condoms altogether.

Ultra Peanut
09-22-2007, 10:00 PM
What's wrong? That it doesn't lead to procreation? Neither do blowjobs. And we should prolly just outlaw condoms altogether.SLAG is ALL OVER THIS.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 10:01 PM
Wrong Laz, for me, the 'wrongness' stems from simple biology.

I said i was out & keep getting pulled back in... :banghead:

Ok, maybe i fudged a little...my religious beliefs do play a role, but the biological aspect, to me, is undeniable.

LocoChiefsFan
09-22-2007, 10:02 PM
We had a Gay mayor but he just resigned last week. Gay marriage has never been an issue here and I hope it never is.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 10:03 PM
Preventing gay rights will make them go away!

They'll have to learn to be straight.

Ultra Peanut
09-22-2007, 10:10 PM
Preventing gay rights will make them go away!

They'll have to learn to be straight.At least that makes more sense than "Preventing gay rights will lead everyone to accept them, in time! We're just not ready as a society yet!"

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 10:10 PM
Wrong Laz, for me, the 'wrongness' stems from simple biology.

I said i was out & keep getting pulled back in... :banghead:
hehe ...

sorry but i don't buy it


if a single man wanted to adopt, you would hardly think twice. you'd say something like "hey, as long as he's a good guy ... not a pedophile or anything"


if a single woman want to adopt, you would worry even less. you'd say "what a nice lady ..... as long as she has the financial means to support the kids"


but say 2 guys want to adopt ...... we'll that's just wrong. Doesn't matter that they have twice the financial resources and twice the parenting "time". It's all about that's "icky" and the generations of religious influence that tells us that it's wrong.


how would you feel if 1 guy wanted to adopt but he just rented a room out to another male ..... they had no relationship?

all about the "eww" and "sin"


unless it's really just all about the "eww" with you .... which is even more pathetic. Putting a poor kid out of a loving home just because you can't handle a gay relationship.

who cares what you can handle if the kid gets a good home.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 10:11 PM
Preventing gay rights will make them go away!

They'll have to learn to be straight.

Oh geeez, i dont think most people want them to go away...its been here as long as people have.

I dont want them to endure slurs or harassment or beat them up or whatever...let them live their lives...let them marry...its all good.

I simply feel that kids change the equation.

Thats it, i SWEAR, my last post on this.

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 10:12 PM
Oh geeez, i dont think most people want them to go away...its been here as long as people have.

I dont want them to endure slurs or harassment or beat them up or whatever...let them live their lives...let them marry...its all good.

I simply feel that kids change the equation.

Thats it, i SWEAR, my last post on this.

i'd say there is a good 33% of people that do want them to go away


they are called Neocons

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 10:13 PM
Oh geeez, i dont think most people want them to go away...

You just said you don't want gays raising children because they'll pass on the lifestyle. That's an open admission that you do want gays to go away and you want their existence to be prevented.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 10:14 PM
i'd say there is a good 33% of people that do want them to go away


they are called Neocons

Hah...i'm sure even Darth Dick Cheney loves his daughter...in some cold, heartless way.

Mr. Laz
09-22-2007, 10:14 PM
Hah...i'm sure even Darth Dick Cheney loves his daughter...in some cold, heartless way.
pulled you back in PBJ PBJ

Thats it, i SWEAR, my last post on this.

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 10:16 PM
pulled you back in PBJ PBJ

:cuss:

Easy 6
09-22-2007, 10:20 PM
You just said you don't want gays raising children because they'll pass on the lifestyle. That's an open admission that you do want gays to go away and you want their existence to be prevented.

Oh my...you got me...i'm the most pea-brained, heartless, hateful & mean prick on this mortal coil.

Logical
09-22-2007, 10:20 PM
i'd say there is a good 33% of people that do want them to go away


they are called Neocons

Dammit 200 posts and it never really went political, now it has lost its virginity.

HolmeZz
09-22-2007, 10:21 PM
Oh my...you got me...i'm the most pea-brained, heartless, hateful & mean prick on this mortal coil.

I'll take your sarcasm as a concession. You have been nailed.

Reaper16
09-22-2007, 10:28 PM
Wow, I can't believe I stayed away from this thread until now. It was a very entertaining, and revealing, read these past twenty minutes.

Anyong Bluth
09-22-2007, 11:02 PM
Oh my...you got me...i'm the most pea-brained, heartless, hateful & mean prick on this mortal coil.

I don't think you're heartless, you're a parent, I presume. You just look at it from a parents point of view, and want the best for them. However, you are predisposed to an idea that same sex parents can't provide a positive homelife. It's a natural reaction, but its not founded by any studies that have looked at the positive homelife that kids raised in these homes have received.

It's understandable to be cautious about is and all, but myths are meant to be proven wrong. The world isn't flat, no matter what the church wanted to push on people, and shun certain geniuses into exile for their advancement of theories.

Groves
09-22-2007, 11:10 PM
I saw Michael Vick do something nice to someone, therefore dog fighting *can't* be wrong.

Logical
09-23-2007, 12:05 AM
Wow, I can't believe I stayed away from this thread until now. It was a very entertaining, and revealing, read these past twenty minutes.


You showed incredible willpower.

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2007, 12:12 AM
Dane,

Your response is no more tolerant that those that oppose gay marriage or adoption. Making broad generalizations about people simply based upon location is just as stereotypical.

It's not a "broad generalization". It's far from broad, as evidenced by the responses of those who live in the midwest. Additionally, having spent 27 years in Kansas and now 14 in California (both northern and southern), I think I'm in a far better position to make a "generalization" than those who live in Nebraska and make "broad generalizations" about how children 2,000 miles away would react in a given situation. Especially when it's been noted numerous times that the midwest is far different from the west coast.

What do I need to be "tolerant" of, anyway? People who feel that children of mixed races are somehow different than single race children? People who feel that gay parents will somehow make life more difficult for their adoptive children just because the parents are gay?

If that's what you're implying, I'll take my "intolerance" over theirs any day of the week.

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2007, 12:26 AM
Dane, what you call close-minded, many if not most Americans call morally right.

The simple act of labeling them the 'plain states', speaks to your disdain for the region that raised you.

Honestly, i'll take the plainness of the midwest over much of the morally bankrupt horseshit i discovered while living in So-Cal.

I'm not here to declare i'm totally in the right, i am here to declare that just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong...and of course you could say the same of me.

Suffice it to say, nobody wins this argument & never will.

You seem to have some sort of inferiority complex. Referring to the Plains States (which they are and have been called for decades) is NOT disdain. It's a description, just like the "Bible Belt", which would be another description (and just as accurate).

I'm sorry your experience in California didn't meet your expectations. Maybe you expected everyone to fawn all over you and make you a star, even if you didn't have the talent, looks or drive. I'm glad you found shelter in your small town in Illinois which honestly, just goes to show that you don't belong in the big show. You've never mentioned that you did theater in Chicago or New York, just that you came to LA and ran back home with your tail between your legs. In that case, I wouldn't expect you to have enjoyed your stay here but that doesn't mean that all 40 million people in this state have "no morals" nor does it mean that the overwhelming majority of California citizens aren't good people - people that are just as "good" as those in your beloved midwest.

As far as this "argument" is concerned, hopefully over time, people will begin to realize that gay marriage and gay parents aren't the signs of the end of civilization. And hopefully it will be an issue of the past.

Otter
09-23-2007, 04:53 AM
I find it kinda fascinating that one man could look at hairy man ass and find it attractive.

Anyong Bluth
09-23-2007, 05:23 AM
It's not a "broad generalization". It's far from broad, as evidenced by the responses of those who live in the midwest. Additionally, having spent 27 years in Kansas and now 14 in California (both northern and southern), I think I'm in a far better position to make a "generalization" than those who live in Nebraska and make "broad generalizations" about how children 2,000 miles away would react in a given situation. Especially when it's been noted numerous times that the midwest is far different from the west coast.

What do I need to be "tolerant" of, anyway? People who feel that children of mixed races are somehow different than single race children? People who feel that gay parents will somehow make life more difficult for their adoptive children just because the parents are gay?

If that's what you're implying, I'll take my "intolerance" over theirs any day of the week.


Great, you spent a long time in Kansas, and then in California. I'm sorry, but whooptee-freekin-do!!

You and I both agree on this issue, but I find you're response to be completely smug. Do you need to be tolerant of people's opinions that are 2000 miles away. YES. If you want to hold yourself out there as some progressive west coaster that is clued in where all the folks back in the midwest don't understand, then yes, I expect you to demonstrate a higher degree of intellect and understanding on tolerance.

Tolerance goes both ways- both in accepting and not accepting. You can't possibly claim to be a person that embraces all lifestyles if you simply dismiss those that are less open-minded about such issues.


If we want to give a run down of all the BS and what-not, I could take to task the simple fact you choose to live in Hollywood. In reality, I could care less. My entire dad's side of the family all still live out there. I am sure you're clued in enough to recognize the company CAA? I used to work there before deciding to move to Chicago. I find southern California to be both very positively progressive, and still at most vapid. Asinine comments by people when referring to the midwest as the "middle east" simply because it's middle from the east coast as a cute little nickname puts me off.

Yes, the midwest has its fair share of pigheaded individuals, but I can more tolerate that than a bunch of holier than thou, perpetual commuters, chastising any and all things sans California. I remember hearing comments from people saying that all the midwest was were strip malls filled with banks and liquor stores. Even though LA is the biggest suburban sprawl of them all, and all you have to do is substitute a Trader Joe's here and there.

I have also lived a large portion of my life in Kansas, and it's far from perfect, but I've also lived in London, Copenhagen, Seville, Florence, and Paris. I love the majority of midwesterner's attitudes. It may sound cliche, but it's very salt of the earth. I love living currently in Chicago, but once the time arises when I settle down, I can't think of a better place than KC to raise a family.

I don't want to attack, but this simply strikes me as an overly liberal condemnation of both those that have the right to voice their opinions but their voice doesn't quite fall in line with what you want to hear so it's belittled and catogorized because you read his location, possibly.

Easy 6
09-23-2007, 06:44 AM
You seem to have some sort of inferiority complex. Referring to the Plains States (which they are and have been called for decades) is NOT disdain. It's a description, just like the "Bible Belt", which would be another description (and just as accurate).

I'm sorry your experience in California didn't meet your expectations. Maybe you expected everyone to fawn all over you and make you a star, even if you didn't have the talent, looks or drive. I'm glad you found shelter in your small town in Illinois which honestly, just goes to show that you don't belong in the big show. You've never mentioned that you did theater in Chicago or New York, just that you came to LA and ran back home with your tail between your legs. In that case, I wouldn't expect you to have enjoyed your stay here but that doesn't mean that all 40 million people in this state have "no morals" nor does it mean that the overwhelming majority of California citizens aren't good people - people that are just as "good" as those in your beloved midwest.

As far as this "argument" is concerned, hopefully over time, people will begin to realize that gay marriage and gay parents aren't the signs of the end of civilization. And hopefully it will be an issue of the past.

I tried to keep it civil Dane, didnt take personal shots etc.

But the fact is that you dont have the SLIGHTEST f@cking clue what my experience was like, what my acting resume includes or ANYTHING about my talent, looks or drive. I came home because my ex-wife said..."come home or were getting a divorce"...so i came home & got a divorce anyway. I had 2 SAG vouchers in very short order, so dont assume to know SHIT about those things.

I didnt label all S0-Cal people, but the vast majority of those i met couldnt have been more vain, shallow or materialistic. For far too many out there, a persons worth is measured by what kind of car they drive.

Its sad that it came to this, as i didnt want it to...but you can definitely suck a fart out of my ass with your name dropping, star f@cking, i'm ALWAYS in close proximity to celebs, 'gone Hollywood' self.

Simplex3
09-23-2007, 08:21 AM
So it wouldn't bother you that "Billy with two dads" is getting his ass kicked at school everyday? No child should be subjected to that.
Who would be kicking his ass every day? Your knuckle-dragging simian offspring? You realize that kids don't just come up with these prejudices on their own, right?

A kid growing up in a house with two loving parents beats an orphanage all day, every day. Period.

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2007, 10:04 AM
I tried to keep it civil Dane, didnt take personal shots etc.

But the fact is that you dont have the SLIGHTEST f@cking clue what my experience was like, what my acting resume includes or ANYTHING about my talent, looks or drive. I came home because my ex-wife said..."come home or were getting a divorce"...so i came home & got a divorce anyway. I had 2 SAG vouchers in very short order, so dont assume to know SHIT about those things.

I didnt label all S0-Cal people, but the vast majority of those i met couldnt have been more vain, shallow or materialistic. For far too many out there, a persons worth is measured by what kind of car they drive.

Its sad that it came to this, as i didnt want it to...but you can definitely suck a fart out of my ass with your name dropping, star f@cking, i'm ALWAYS in close proximity to celebs, 'gone Hollywood' self.

You threw civility out of the window as soon as you said that I made "snide" remarks. Snide? You mean where I stated that Bugeater was the "problem" for bringing "mixed race" people into the equation? Again, what century is this again?

YOU are the one that has stated time and time again throughout your time on the 'Planet how morally bankrupt, twisted and "liberal" the people of SoCal were during your stay. Obviously, you weren't meant to be here because you're not. I know several people that came to LA and couldn't take it. It was far too different from the midwest. Too many ethnicities, too many gays, too much competition. They all went home. The few that stuck it out are now very happy and very successful.

Additionally, you don't know anything about me either. I've shared very few stories here because too many people take offense to my experiences. Trust me, I've only shared about 1% of what's happened to me and my life since moving to LA 14 years ago and at times, that 1% is too much.

As I stated previously (though you seemed to ignore it), I'm sorry your stay in SoCal didn't meet your expectations. That's life. If you're so talented and should be working in the entertainment business, you should certainly get your ass back out here. You don't want to be 65 years old and look back and say "What if...".

LOCOChief
09-23-2007, 10:09 AM
I don't care. All marriage means is she gets half your shit.
In this case one packs all the shit.

LOCOChief
09-23-2007, 10:11 AM
I didn't want to get sucked into this discussion

Adept Havelock
09-23-2007, 10:14 AM
A kid growing up in a house with two loving parents beats an orphanage all day, every day. Period.

:clap:

Except to those that have convinced themselves being raised by a state institution is preferable to taking the risk of Heather having two mommies or daddies. :banghead:

Easy 6
09-23-2007, 10:26 AM
YOU are the one that has stated time and time again throughout your time on the 'Planet how morally bankrupt, twisted and "liberal" the people of SoCal were during your stay. Obviously, you weren't meant to be here because you're not. I know several people that came to LA and couldn't take it. It was far too different from the midwest. Too many ethnicities, too many gays, too much competition. They all went home. The few that stuck it out are now very happy and very successful.

Additionally, you don't know anything about me either. I've shared very few stories here because too many people take offense to my experiences. Trust me, I've only shared about 1% of what's happened to me and my life since moving to LA 14 years ago and at times, that 1% is too much.

As I stated previously (though you seemed to ignore it), I'm sorry your stay in SoCal didn't meet your expectations. That's life. If you're so talented and should be working in the entertainment business, you should certainly get your ass back out here. You don't want to be 65 years old and look back and say "What if...".

Yes, living in Hollywood, i saw many things that turned my stomach. As for me using the term 'liberal', its never happened...because i dont think thats some dirty word. It has a lot of positive aspects to it.

I've known several incredibly talented musicians & actors, many of whom are still there & are still struggling like hell just to pay the bills. Theres an INCREDIBLE amount of luck that plays into finding success in that business. There are thousands of talentless hacks who made it on sheer, blind luck alone. Talent often has nothing to do with it.

Living there taught me that you dont have to live there to break into the business. At this point in my life, i've decided that being present & active in my kids lives is more important than those dreams. That could well change in time, and if it does, i'll make the 3 hour drive to Chicago to pursue it...major network shows & movies are filmed there on a daily basis.

The wild variety of cultures & people out there hardly deterred me, in fact, it excited me...its the entertainment biz types, wannabe's & hangers on that spoiled me.

As for you, i fought fire with fire when i felt i had to...thats how i am...but i am NOT a naturally hateful person.

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2007, 10:29 AM
Great, you spent a long time in Kansas, and then in California. I'm sorry, but whooptee-freekin-do!!

You and I both agree on this issue, but I find you're response to be completely smug. Do you need to be tolerant of people's opinions that are 2000 miles away. YES. If you want to hold yourself out there as some progressive west coaster that is clued in where all the folks back in the midwest don't understand, then yes, I expect you to demonstrate a higher degree of intellect and understanding on tolerance.

Tolerance goes both ways- both in accepting and not accepting. You can't possibly claim to be a person that embraces all lifestyles if you simply dismiss those that are less open-minded about such issues.

Gee, thanks for the pep talk. You're what, 28 years old? Well, I'm almost 42. 42!

I like how you're defending tolerance by stating that those close minded people living in the midwest should be defended for their out-dated misconceptions and ill-conceived perceptions. What? That makes no sense. Let's defend those who make ridiculous and hurtful statements because they should be accepted as well? WTF?

Are you married to an Asian woman? I am. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for her to ever VISIT Kansas City? She's Filipino and stands out like a sore thumb. We went to Tanner's on 119th & College a few years back and you'd have thought that Osama Bin Laden had walked in the door when we entered. It was very difficult for her with everyone staring (and BTW, she's second generation, UCLA math major grad - not someone who just arrived). THAT does not happen in on the West Coast. Or NYC or Miami or any place other than the Midwest.

My family has made EMBARRASSING comments while around her and they've made EMBARRASSING comments about gays and in the presence of gays while visiting Los Angeles. It's not that they intend to be hurtful but the comments are very hurtful. I realize that it's a product of their environment but PLEASE, don't defend people that make those comments as intelligent, wise and experienced people.

You've only been on the 'Planet for a short period of time so you have NO IDEA how people in California are treated and viewed. Most of the Cali people will agree with me that there is an unfavorable view of us West Coasters, regardless of the fact that most of us have spent a considerable amount of time living in the Midwest.

If you don't think that Bugeater's comments are a product of his experience and environment, then you must come to the conclusion that he's a hateful person. I don't believe that. But I do believe that his lack of experience in dealing with gays and non-whites has shaped his ill-informed and biased opinions.

Thanks for bringing up the "Liberal" thing again, though you failed to realize that YOU are assuming that since I live in California, I'm automatically liberal. Nice. For the record (and for about the 1,231 time), I've voted Republican in four elections and for the Democrats once.

DaneMcCloud
09-23-2007, 10:37 AM
I've known several incredibly talented musicians & actors, many of whom are still there & are still struggling like hell just to pay the bills. Theres an INCREDIBLE amount of luck that plays into finding success in that business. There are thousands of talentless hacks who made it on sheer, blind luck alone. Talent often has nothing to do with it.

As for you, i fought fire with fire when i felt i had to...thats how i am...but i am NOT a naturally hateful person.

Talent often doesn't have anything to do with being successful but then again, it usually does. I've also found that many people over-rate their own talent and the talent (or lack of talent) of others. So it's all objective. And yes, it's a very, very difficult business to crack but you can't crack it if you leave. I understand that you had personal reasons for leaving. If you had stayed, there was still no guarantee that you would have found success.

I don't take your comments towards me as hateful and I'd be a pretty thin-skinned person if I were to take them to heart. I've been through far too much in my time in Los Angeles to take the opinions of an anonymous poster on a football forum seriously.

No hard feelings, whatsoever. Though I'll defer the fart-sucking to someone else.

GarySpFc
09-23-2007, 10:50 AM
I'm posting this from San Francisco. If you have ever seen the insanity homosexuals sink to you would never be posting this nonsense. I'm not referring to one instance of odd behavior, but acts of depravity in the open on the streets on a hourly basis.