This is patently false, a child simply needs a strong connection with a caregiver that meets their basic hierarchy of needs (physical and emotional). It is why older siblings, grand parents, single parents, aunts, or uncles can raise productive human beings. This is not anecdotal, this is backed by developmental psychology. A little human needs a big, caring human(s) and they will have all of the necessary tools to turn out “normal”. This is all that I will weigh in on as it is in my wheel house and is simply an absurd statement.
1 Like
If you say so…
Fpr “normality” to exist, there must be an “abnormality.” In this case, abnormality being a set of same sex “parents,” which is a word that is a misnomor, but ok whatever. It seems like there’s so many out there who want to create a subjective reality, when in fact subjectivity is anything but reality - it’s not a constant.
Regardless of psychological research, it is abnormal because they are not, and can not be birth parents. Guess we’ll have to check the research when the generation of kids raised by such couples (vs. parents) come of age and see what they have to say.
Since they are, and will always have to be, the minority cases, they will inevitably look at the other kids who comprise the majority and have some thoughts about why they can’t be part of that group. Mathematically speaking, they never can be. So I personally posit that those kids will always get a sense of being “different” and/or “less than.” As individuals, they are not less than, but different is something chosen by those same sex folks paying their bills, therefore the child has no choice but to be different. That in turn invites the kids comprising the majority to look down on them - not nice but it will be the case, regardless of how much “sensitivity” training is blasted down the other kids’ throats.
Behaviorally speaking, kids notice things and tend to harshly point out differences. That will create problems, and it will eternally be the case because it is human nature.
Think about when you were a kid in school. Were there never kids who had things that you wanted and did not, or could not have? Unless you were part of a finacially elite family, odds are that happened. Hell, my family was affluent but I still saw other kids who had things that I didn’t and it created envy at times. No, it didn’t negatively impact me as an adult, but it wasn’t enjoyable either. And upon reaching adulthood, it had to have had an effect on my striving to be sure my own children could avoid that feeling as much as possible.
But, this isn’t about “typical” is it? This is about a child being put, with no choice, into an atypical situation, and as a result, being viewed differently that the kids who are in the typical, traditional family. But hey, as long as their two “daddy’s” are lovey dovey right? To hell with how THAT affects the kids. The relationship between man and wife can never be copied. The things only they provide in a child’s environment just can not be duplicated. Therefore anything else is subpar. Although I don’t have the actual reference, I did see research recently that rebutted the concept that kids with a same sex couple raising them weren’t damaged by it.
There is ideal, and there’s less than ideal. I prefer to provide ideal when forming a new human being to take over this world when I’m an old(er) dude. Guess that means I’m an old fashioned, bigoted homophobe nowadays but I also don’t care about that label, and a label is all it is. I don’t fear homosexuals in the least, but I do fear the damage the lifestyle can inflict on the rest of society, especially the kids.
There is no shortage of real bigots out there who seek to do physical harm to members of the groups they hate. I detest that behavior as much as I do homosexual behavior. But I digress.
Take care,
So you don’t fear them, but you do. Thanks for clarifying.
You do not have to do physical harm to be a bigot, I provided the webster definition above. Here it is said differently, said straight from da google:
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions
or from dictionary.com:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion
You can decide if that fits you or not.
different =/= less than
I think @pfury’s comment regarding how people spoke about segregation was a good one, and it applies to the type of thinking you’re displaying here where anything other than what you have is subpar, and being different is worse.
You keep talking about raising kids, and what is best for the kids. That’s fine, but is a separate issue than letting people get married. Couples don’t have to be married to have kids, and married couples don’t have to procreate for it to be a valid marriage.
So much other nonsense in your posts, but you don’t seem to reply to points or arguments made so there doesn’t seem to be a point in dissecting it.
1 Like
Given the 50% divorce rate and generalized shitty parenting displayed by heterosexual couples in many places (urban, rural, rich, poor, black, white all included in that), are we really sure that the point standing in the way of homosexual marriage ought to be “won’t someone think of the children?”
I’ll clarify further: “I don’t fear gays because they’re all namby-pamby fruitcakes who aren’t going to fight me, I just worry that the presence of gay people is going to erode traditional American values.”
This is true, but what is normal for one is not normal for another, extremely subjective. Groups of males or females have raised children for ages (men going off to war, women passing during labor) same sex groups have supported one another throughout history to help raise spawn.
Ok, so based on your opinion it is abnormal, not according to research and science. And yes, they can.
Probably depends on how they are raised and taught to deal with adversity.
Bullying exists, yes, always has and always will, once again, if heterosexual parents can’t teach their kids to be accepting (kids have no idea what any of it means, they simply pack their parents’ built in prejudice around) then it’s more of a reflection on your ideal isn’t it?
Do you not posit, then, that as a homosexual who grew up being an outcast, who dealt with adversity on a regular basis, that they could not teach their own children how to deal with adversity, bullying, and targeting in a healthy way?
I would be interested to see this and if you run across it again would like a heads up.
I don’t believe you’re as bigoted as you make yourself out to be, I simply see it as an outmoded way of thinking. And I’m not sure what damage can be done to a child by a same sex set of parents that hasn’t already been done by a heterosexual couple? At least with a same sex couple you know they’re actually trying to have kids not a “Whoops I messed up and now we’ve got another one.” (Seen that a time or two, beer and bad decisions, eh?)
1 Like
My wife’s best friend broke up with her then-boyfriend about three months into pregnancy (last fall). The kid is now about 12 weeks old, and since birth we’ve been watching a full-on Jerry Springer episode unfolding in real life. As a (relatively) neutral observer, I can say that both sides are at fault, and for now, the poor kid is mostly a pawn for them to keep sniping at each other; unless something changes,he’ll be looking at eighteen years of his mom trash-talking his dad for being a deadbeat while his dad trash-talks his mom for not letting him spend more time with the kid.
That kid would have a billion times better chance at something resembling a “normal” childhood under the care of homosexual parents that had actually planned to have a child.
1 Like
Indeed. Two really dumb arguments from the anti gay marriage crowd.
-
The sanctity of marriage- Give me a break you can get married in 5 minutes in Las Vegas. A ton of marriages end in divorce. Gay people can’t cause any more harm to marriage than straight people have already done.
-
The parent issue- 100% of the time two loving gay people would be better than two non loving straight people. All sorts of kids are starting to be raised by loving gay people and these kids are often successful. Don’t even try to tell me an abusive Dad or a lot of single moms is a better environment than two loving people who happen to be of the same sex. Ridiculous.
3 Likes
This doesn’t even touch on the fact that a gay couple, regardless of whether they are married or not, could still adopt a kid and raise it in a house they share. Its not like once they could get married THEN they moved in together.
Fortunately now it isn’t the complicated mess of one parent having to be the legal adopter.
- To be clear, I do not fear any individual. I also wish for everyone to coexist peacefully. That ain’t likely. People will disagree and the disagreement will take many forms, from verbal to (sadly sometimes) physical.
However, some groups’ behaviors can collectively have a negative impact on society and its future, therefore I fear the impact, not the person themself. Wary perhaps, fear no. So I do not fear homosexuality itself, but the effects that condoning it have. There’s a difference. And like I said, if I condone it, I may as well support it. Hell, just tolerating it leads to condoning it, therefore in my home it is not tolerated, but that is the end of my legal jurisdiction now ain’t it? Outside of my home, I tolerate, albeit with while griping about it.
Note that both definitions you give rely on the basis of “Intolerant” (Merriam Webster (m-w dot com)
Definition of intolerant
1 unable or unwilling to endure
2:
a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
By the numbers:
- not unable or unwilling, so no
- not my place to grant anyone else’s freedom. They have it, and as long as it doesn’t detract from my freedom there’s no problem, so no on #2 here
- Again, I don’t grant rights. As for sharing social, political or professional rights, I’ll share what is required and legal to share. Everything else ends up being my choice.
So by Webster’s definition, I am not a bigot.
Lets expound on that -->> If I outright refused to be tolerant, I would have to take action against another to prevent them from doing (x). No not always physical action, but action none the less. I do not. What I do is to freely state my own opinions regarding an issue. No reprisals are, or really could be forthcoming as a result. So I’m as free as anyone else. They don’t mess with my freedom, nor I with theirs. So it’s fine.
But then we run into the legislative part. We all have a voice in our government through our representatives. We also have the right to freely assemble. So, I am as free as the rainbow flyers to gather around a BBQ pit drinking beer and stating my opinions with Bubba as are Jim and Jim to sit around a unicorn collection and talk about what a redneck they think I am.
One’s skin color is not a choice, unless of course you take the same route Michal Jackson did, but one’s actions taken on any sexual attraction are a choice… Skin color can not be legislated, and anything based on it should not be legislated. Our actions can and are legislated. If I choose to get my grub at gunpoint from my neighbor, my choice carries a legal consequence (armed robbery, etc.).
- Point
No, not a separate issue - kids are very visual, and they see what is around them and it shapes them in their growth. Our kids, as a society, are our responsibility. Therefore I care about things that I feel have a negative impact on them and their growth into productive members of society.
The point of disagreement is that I feel homosexuals have a negative impact whereas some do not feel that they do.
- Other point:
—>> Depends on our definition of “valid marriage.” My definition is obviously different than those who support marriage between same sex partners. That is:
The union of one man and one woman. Further, to me it is a Sacrament. Note that traditional marriage vows include the proper pronouns for birth sexes. Those are obviosly altered for same sex “marriages.” But I’ll spare us all the religousl discourse on that (for now).
- Point
No, couples do not have to be married to acquire kids - adoption issue. But I stand by my point that homosexual couples are not the way to fill the vacuum for irresponsible heterosexuals making and discarding babies. I detest that “stuff.” For one, having hetero sex is designed to make babies, so if a couple doesn’t want a baby, they need to abstain. New life follows the proper form of personal sexual gratification, or that’s how it was designed by God. So that gratification put before creating new life is putting it exactly bass-ackwards. But no need to get into asses and backwards in this thread I think.
- An aside:
What needs to happen is instead of tax benefits encouraging women to have yet another baby, there should be a penalty to discourage it. Like my mother always said, if you wanna dance, you gotta pay the fiddler. There’s too many people who want to dance but not pay. Same thing with homosexuals. They want the gratification but all I typically see is them whining about me being disagreeable. It won’t change. I will eternally disagree. And if I have the ability to raise hell after I die, I’ll hop right out of the grave and bitch about it then.
How’s that for replies to points?
Glad you think so.
No, they’re not. If this is how you think it works, I’m not surprised at why you think you can “cure” them of their problem. If this is the basis for how you approach this topic, I don’t think we’re going to reach much common ground.
Yes, kids are a different issue than allowing people to be legally married. Unless you think that gay marriage being lawful all of a sudden created a bunch of gay people that will influence your children. They were gay before the law was passed, and still are now that they can marry.
What does this have to do with marriage? They are homosexual regardless, you just don’t like it so you want to legislate against them. Criminals are a negative impact on society, by your logic, should they not be allowed to be married?
it doesn’t matter what your religion says, we’re talking about what the law recognizes. You could believe flying monkeys are sacred for all I care.
wtf is this rambling? The point is you keep talking about kids as a requirement for being married and you go off on a tangent about how babies are made, sexual gratification, god’s design, and butt sex.
Seems kinda pointless to talk about it then, doesn’t it?
Much better
Yeah this is full blown insane. I have a good friend who can’t have kids and she is going to adopt. But by your standards her and her husband should never have sex because they can’t have kids. So this 30 year old couple shouldn’t ever have sex. The moment your wife goes through menopause (no idea if you’re married) you should abstain from sex because you can’t have kids.
You are really controlling about other people’s sex lives huh? You stay up at night in a rage thinking you know that woman who had a hysterectomy had sex with her husband last night. Disgusting, they should abstain.
Yeah I gotta bow out of this now. Not dealing with someone rational.
Lol, ya. How utterly ridiculous.
U misunderstand me. Sex is ordered to procreation and the unity of a man and woman. If a couple can’t make babies of course sex is ok. Thinking otherwise would indeed be “utterly ridiculous.”
And yes I’m married going on 28 years and have kids. Menopause I’m betting will slow us a bit, but not halt things.
My point was that “unwanted” pregnancy is exactly that simple to prevent - abstain. Best birth control there is and it’s free!
But instead, a lot of couples create a life, then an innocent baby gets killed. That is utterly insane IMO.
Also note, since procreation is the MAIN point of sex, and second is marital unity between man and woman, it follows that sex that couldn’t, barring the situations mentioned such as menopause, infertility, etc, only heterosexual relations are the appropriate modus operandi there. Because of this, homosexual relations are out of line by the design of God and nature.
We men are complementary to our wives sexually and in many other ways, naturally, as they are to us. That absolutely can not be duplicated between a same sex couple as it’s physically impossible. And don’t start with a gender reassignment thing either because I don’t care what a surgeon does, the sex is built in deeper than a knife can cut.
Except you’ve just said you are going to have sex when you can’t procreate so let’s throw that first part out of there. Clearly people can have sex if they don’t want to procreate and you said yourself you plan on doing this. So let’s ignore that part as you contradict it with your own words. The second point is beyond stupid as well as tons of people have sex without being married. So both of those points are completely moot but we can play with the third part of the insanity of you wishing to death you controlled everyone’s genitals.
If God didn’t want people to have sex in the butt (hey guess what straight people can do that as well) why did he create that option. Clearly God wasn’t so against anal sex that he made it impossible. So I’m going to suggest he was cool with it (ignoring the fact that he doesn’t exist for right now).
Man and I said I wasn’t going to respond to the lunacy. Dude we get it you wish everyone did with their genitals exactly what you want. They don’t and you can either get over that or keep saying “man I wish I had control of everyone’s private parts! I think all the time how awesome that would be!”
What is their to discuss if they want to be unhappy thats on them… Its for legal reasons like taxs wills ect… Seperation of Church and state… If God hates gays so much whys he keep making them? Now this is a real nothing burger
That’s way off base in how it depicts what I want and/or how I feel about homosexuals. People absolutely can do what they want with their genitals, and they do, but it doesn’t mean it’s ok or “right.” . I can do what I want with a fist but that doesn’t mean using it is ok either…but moving on.
I do not have specific wishes for what people do with their genitals, rather I have specific wishes about what I wish they wouldn’t do.
I am not unhappy. I am displeased with the current state of political affairs around the issue, and my government legalizing what I consider to be an atrocious thing - gay “marriage.” That’s absurd to me. I realize it is not absurd to everyone, and hey, it’s a free frickin’ country so as long as it’s not in my home, or in my face outside of it, then whatever. But that doesn’t mean I’ll ever be quiet regarding the issue - free speech ya know. Just like the free speech that I personally do not wish to hear is blaring across the airwaves, or in a stadium for the gay bowl (which, no I didn’t attend), or wherever.
If I were indeed unhappy, yes that would be on me. It’s quite the opposite, bitching about things I perceive as being dead wrong gives me pleasure. I was born pissed off…
As for God creating gay people or being ok with butt sex, gimme a break. Do we have to do the “Adam and EVE” discussion vs Adam & Adam?! And as to His existence, that’s an entirely diffferent thread. But why is it so difficult to see that our sexual organs have the design (regardless of where you think that design came from) of procreation. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t procreate now would we? To me it logically follows that procreation is their purpose. If I am married to a person of the opposite sex, and yes that is the only valid marriage possible, then my sexual relations with my spouse are, by default, whether the spouse can conceive or not, ORDERED TOWARDS procreation. So having sex after menopause is still ordered towards procreation, and is THE unitive act described as “becoming one flesh.” I’d not divorce my wife because she couldn’t conceive, nor would it have prevented me from marrying her. A set of hairy boys would have, yes. Dammit.
I’m an extremely logical, analytical person. So I have a great deal of difficulty following something that is so illogical as homosexuality. And I don’t want to follow it. The only way I can avoid the topic is to move to an isolated area with no media. Since I can’t get my wife to do that, it’s not an option.
The “why does He keep making” gay people statement is pure insanity. He does not make gay people. He makes people who then choose to be gay. If they didn’t, then why the hell would we use the term gay to start with? It sure as hell ain’t because they’re all just happy. To the contrary, most of them seem to bitch about sex issues even more than I do (scary I know).
This thread is going to have me bald soon!
Later 
Followed by:
And finished with:
Uh huh.
Is it a choice for him to be completely obsessed with other people’s genitals or did God make him that way? With counseling I wonder if he could be cured? Or is he forced to live his whole life wishing he could control what other people do?
I don’t pray but may someone or a higher power please help this man so he is not forced to live a life constantly hoping other people do what he wants them to do sexually.
Sure, you’re technically correct. However, simple =/= easy. Most 15-30-year-olds would fuck a hole in the ground if it were moist enough. We are biologically driven to reproduce, by God I might add, and it isn’t easy to deny that drive especially early in life.
Abstinence pledges and programs to prevent unwanted pregnancy have been tried, pretty sure I went to one in high school. Obviously anecdotal, but I’ve never seen such a pledge remembered in a meaningful way or have any effect beyond the 30 seconds after its done.
Edit: I’m sure they is some research studying their effectiveness.Similar to “scared straight” drug programs that were mentioned in the freakonomics podcast this morning about how some programs can actually CAUSE harm, not prevent it. Sometimes the best intentions don’t always lead to the best results:
The podcast discussed how a mentorship program actually made kids turn out worse than the control:
1 Like