The Queers are at it again!!!!!!!!

[liberalogic]

Personally I think since most employers have granted the rights of couples that live together to receive benefits as do spouses, the same should be added for gays. With that said, shouldn't my father who lives with me, be granted the same? Just a thought.

Now more to the topic at hand, I said before, I think it's important that whether or not there is a sexual relationship, if I say 'so and so' should be able to visit me or make medical decisions for me if I can't, it should be thus. Give me a form to do so.

On the other hand, homosexual unions, while not 'mental illness' are deviant, in the sociological sense, as is Down's. Down's is also a medical condition, but never mind that.

My take, gays should have equal rights regarding employment, education, free from harrassment as anyone else. On the other hand, they are not a 'special group' that should have extraordinary rights. Just like I wouldn't, (yuk, phooey) marry my father, that just shouldn't be an issue for gays. Civil unions in the sense of getting fair rights, ok.

Now with that said, gays wanting to teach in schools, etc. Simple. Do NOT bring your sex life into such. Yes, there are places for Don't ask, don't tell. Know when and where to discuss such. Schools, scouts, etc., are neither the time or place for such. I would no more tell my kids about my love life at school and I'm strait. Do they ask? Yes, and I'm old enough to be their very old mother or very young grandmother. They still ask. I still just say, not appropriate.

So maybe we should just eliminate marriage as a state-sanctioned institution (notice I'm leaving the religious ceremony out) and create domestic partnerships for all, which could include two sexual partners, or even a father and a daughter, or just two friends in a platonic relationship.

 

[Annie]

So maybe we should just eliminate marriage as a state-sanctioned institution (notice I'm leaving the religious ceremony out) and create domestic partnerships for all, which could include two sexual partners, or even a father and a daughter, or just two friends in a platonic relationship.

Nope, marriage serves a cultural and societal function. Children are an important part of the viability of a culture. There should be protected and sanctioned benefits. Not so for other 'unions.'

 

[liberalogic]

Nope, marriage serves a cultural and societal function. Children are an important part of the viability of a culture. There should be protected and sanctioned benefits. Not so for other 'unions.'

What about a single mother? Or a man or woman who simply wants to adopt? Or a gay couple who wants to adopt? Why can't the benefits of a domestic partnership be the same as marriage? That way, a single mother would have all of the same benefits as a married couple if she, let's say, formed a domestic partnership with her brother to help support the children. Just because people who have children (gay, single, etc.) don't fall into the categorization of the nuclear family, they should still have the same benefits to support their children.

 

[Annie]

What about a single mother? Or a man or woman who simply wants to adopt? Or a gay couple who wants to adopt? Why can't the benefits of a domestic partnership be the same as marriage? That way, a single mother would have all of the same benefits as a married couple if she, let's say, formed a domestic partnership with her brother to help support the children. Just because people who have children (gay, single, etc.) don't fall into the categorization of the nuclear family, they should still have the same benefits to support their children.

I'm a 'single mother.' I posted above that if gays and unmarried couples can gain benefits, why not my dad off my insurance? Slippery as we all pay for it, but seems where the majority want to go.

Marriage is not the basis then, nor obviously should it be, if fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, significant others are to be beneficiaries.

 

[liberalogic]

There should be protected and sanctioned benefits. Not so for other 'unions.'

So you're saying that ANY union that involves children should get those same extra benefits, not just a married couple?

 

[Annie]

So you're saying that ANY union that involves children should get those same extra benefits, not just a married couple?

No. Don't read into what wasn't there.

 

[liberalogic]

No. Don't read into what wasn't there.

Okay, well I agree with you on the domestic partnership front, but I'm confused as to how you differentiate that and marriage when one need not be married to have children.

 

[Annie]

Okay, well I agree with you on the domestic partnership front, but I'm confused as to how you differentiate that and marriage when one need not be married to have children.

Again you read something into what was not there. In my opinion, the best environment for raising children, a necessity in a surviving culture, it with a mother and father-both providing the necessary DNA.

Unfortunately, sometimes we deal with less than optimum. It is less and the children pay the price. So, children for as long as I've known, which is longer than you have been an adult, are covered by their custodial parent of whatever gender.

With all of that judgemental stuff said, is there a place for gays or singles to 'adopt'? Yes, because unfortuately there are really sucky parents out there. Less than ideal households are better than poor foster families or warehouses for kids. Do I think that 'deviant' lifestyle choices should be open to having children in some fashion? No. The deviants, be they gay or singles of whatever persuasion should if they are inclined, choose infants that are less than perfect or older children that need stability.

A higher standard? Yes. But also a higher threshold of problems for the child to overcome.

 

[Gunny]

It would be nice if some characters showed a bit more character. Yeah. Keep dreaming. As I see it, I poke holes in just about every argument. I sometimes like poking around and being a gadfly. I changed my mind. I think that I will stay a while.

Lucky us.

But you flatter yourself insofar as poking holes in anything goes. Last time you made an honest arguement was .... well ......ummmm......well ....ummmm......

Must've been before my time.

 

[Gunny]

I agree homosexuality is a learned behavior. But I disgaree that it is unnatural. People weren't genetically encoded with a sense of right and wrong or moral beliefs. Social and cultral norms define behaviors, including sexuality and sexual preference. Heterosexual monagamy is just as much a learned behavior as homosexuality.

You will find if you care to look I have repeatedly stated exactly the same thing, right up to the part where you claim heterosexual monogamy are a learned behavior.

Only the monogamy part is a learned behavior. Heterosexuality is consistent with nature insofar as perpetuation of the species is concerned.

I hardly doubt that you or anyone is against homosexual marriage because you're "naturally" against it. The institutions that influenced you dictated your beliefs on homosexuals. Whether you're personally against homosexuality or not, you can't deny that society, in general, deems two lesbian women in a sexual manner more acceptable than two men.

MEN deem two lesbian women is a sexual mammer more acceptable than two men. I don't know any women that find it any more acceptable than men do men. Those would be men thinking with the "wrong head." They let their lust for women override the fact that homosexuality in women is no different than homosexuality in men.

LMAO...they're not my double-standards, they're society's. Those double-standards were a learned behavior.

Racism is a learned behavior. Does that excuse it? I think not.

 

[Dr Grump]

There is no evidence, anywhere, that homosexuality is a learned behaviour...

 

[trobinett]

There is no evidence, anywhere, that homosexuality is a learned behaviour...

Ok, but is there evidence, that it isn't a learned behaviour?

 

[Dr Grump]

Ok, but is there evidence, that it isn't a learned behaviour?

Didn't say that. I like woman. I don't think I learned that. I always have liked 'em. So are you saying that a homo secretly or even openly likes woman buts chooses not to get in a relationship with them, and chooses another man because....??? He or she's a pervert??? Weird....

 

[OCA]

He or she's a pervert??? Weird....

Yes.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm glad you agree it's weird.

 

[trobinett]

Didn't say that. I like woman. I don't think I learned that. I always have liked 'em. So are you saying that a homo secretly or even openly likes woman buts chooses not to get in a relationship with them, and chooses another man because....??? He or she's a pervert??? Weird....

I KNOW you didn't say that, I said that.

So, its agreed then, with BOTH like women.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm ASKING a question. But, to YOUR question of gays secretly or openly liking women. Actually, some gays DO like women, but NOT in a sexual way, and one man choosing another man over a woman IS PERVERTED.

Clear?

 

[Dr Grump]

So, its agreed then, with BOTH like women.

With straights, it can be in a sexual way, with gays, always platonic...

Actually, some gays DO like women, but NOT in a sexual way, and one man choosing another man over a woman IS PERVERTED.
Clear?

Clear. Your opinion is noted...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

and one man choosing another man over a woman IS PERVERTED.

Clear?

The word perversion is marked with immorality.

How many people have been to Italy? I was there a few months ago and it's very common for sitting men to have an arm around one another and for women to hold hands. Not to say these people are gay, but I thought it was socially progressive none-the-less.

Also how many here are opposed to interracial marriage? Did you know only 30 years ago in some states it was illegal?

 

[mattskramer]

... they want us to accept them as equals....well judging by the choices they made they ain't equal mentally by any damn stretch of the imagination.

You probably want people to think that you are equal to other people. Yes. There are laws that say that you are equal. But I still don’t think that you are equal. You will never convince me that you are equal to everyone else – no matter how many laws are passed. You are vastly a superior being.

Don’t you get it? Laws can’t change the opinion and attitudes of people. Let’s pretend that I think that interracial marriage is wrong. People of one race are allowed to choose people from a different race. Interracial marriage is legal. Still, I might think that interracial marriage is illegitimate. I may have the attitude that the races should not mix.

Perhaps gay couples want people to think that their lifestyle is legitimate. No matter what laws are passed. People are free to have and voice their own opinion. To say that we should not have civil unions for gay couples because gay couples don’t want civil union (or marriage) but want us to think that their union is legitimate is simply more faulty reasoning. Sigh. Let’s come up with another reason.

 

[Gunny]

There is no evidence, anywhere, that homosexuality is a learned behaviour...

There is no evidence period that homosexuality is anything BUT aberrant behavior. The existence of homosexual behavior is in and of itself evidence of homosexual behavior.

Without homosexuality being manifested by behavior, it really doesn't exist, does it?