What is a human right?

[RetiredGySgt]

That is a classic example of the slipper slope and domino theory. “If we allowed for this, then we will soon be allowing for that. Then others will demand this.” I don’t buy into that fallacy. Values are not dominos. Understanding grows with experience and reason. We thought that alcohol consumption should be allowed. Then we thought that it should not be allowed. Then we decided that it should be allowed. We have changed minimum drinking ages. Different states have set different minimum ages for the same activity.

Let’s compare this “we better not allow homosexual couples to get married because then we will soon be allowing children to get married” to other things. Should we have never allowed people to smoke? One might reason that smoking cigarettes leads to the smoking of marijuana. Those who like marijuana will demand the right to smoke because cigarette-lovers get to smoke what they like. If we allow for the consumption of marijuana, then those that like cocaine will demand that they we allowed cocaine.

People argue about what is “equal rights” and what is “special rights”. As it applies to heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, I draw the line thusly: Consenting informed adult human beings (those able to fully understand romantic sexual life-long commitment) should be allowed to enter such a commitment. If government recognizes such a union for heterosexual couples and grant such couples special recognition, rights, and responsibilities, then it should equally grant those things to homosexual couples.

Wait, you mean being an adult isn't enough? And hate to tell you but your requirement for "romantic sexual life-long commitment" leaves a lot of people, including a hell of a lot of gays out of the marriage game.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a de facto law.





Then change it to make it two individuals of the same sex who are in love with each other and want to marry cannot, while two individuals of opposite sex can.

Which is why civil unions have been so quick in coming, right? Oh no wait, they still haven't. Besides the thorny fact that we went over this before and separate but equal just ain't equal.

That's right. And persons not of legal can't marry while people of legal age can. And first cousins or brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters can't marry while people who aren't closely related can. And ugly people who can't get a date, much less find a mate, can't marry while attractive people usually don't have any problem doing so. But a gay person has every bit as much right to marry as any striaght person provided he or she meets the legal requirements to be married and marries somebody of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is--people of the opposite sex forming what is intended to be a life time contractual commitment.

If gay people want a comparable situation they should quit demanding marriage, lobby for a different family relationship, call it something other than marriage, and make it into something enviable. But it should not be limited to gays--I don't believe in special rights for anybody. It should be available to any persons who for whatever reason and with whatever sexual orientation.

If gay activists had been willing to make that compromise I believe you would have already had it. But no, you continue to tear down marriage as an important institution while demanding that same sex unions be included in it, and as a result force a great wall of resistance by those who know that marriage is deserving of being preserved as an institution. All kids deserve a mom and a dad.

In the interim you have exactly the same right to marry as anybody else does. You just have to follow the same rules.

No, its not silly at all for gays and lesbians to wish society to recognize their relationship as equal to straight relationships. Symbolism is awfully powerful, especially for people who feel marginalized and discriminated against by society anyway.

And as always, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I wish I was independently wealthy. I wish my house didn't need repairs that I can't afford right now. I wish I could be elected senator or governor or to some important position to serve my fellow citizens and also know what that would be like. I wish my kids lived closer. I wish my spouse didn't snore. I wish the stock market would stabilize. I wish I didn't have to live in a society where people are savaged by other people and so many want what they want instead of what is best for everybody. I wish I had a chance for some do overs so I could make different choices.

Gay people do not feel any more marginalized re marriage than do any people who want very much to be married but it isn't happening for them.

You will not achieve the recognition that you want by destroying a powerful and important American institution. Should you succeed in that, you will, however, be seen as a destroyer of something that has been very good for America and humankind including yourself if you were fortunate enough to grow up in a stable, traditional two parent family. There is plenty of room, however, to build new institutions and to effect constructive change that preserves what it good and adds to it. You cannot significantly change the defintiion of what marriage is without making it something different than marriage.

 

[mattskramer]

Wait, you mean being an adult isn't enough? And hate to tell you but your requirement for "romantic sexual life-long commitment" leaves a lot of people, including a hell of a lot of gays out of the marriage game.

I thought that I said that it is enough. Where do you get that I meant that it was not enough? Let me re-examine my third paragraph. Okay. I think that I understand your point. I defined “consenting informed adult human beings wanting to get married” as those able to fully understand romantic sexual life-long commitment. Okay. Let me clarify my point. It is enough that a couple of informed consenting adults what to get married. Technically, I doubt that anything more is necessary. I just thought that one of the main and popular reasons why people get married is because the want to publicly and officially announce to the world that they understand and are ready for a romantic sexual life-long commitment. I suppose that people could be mistaken in that area. It would leave a hell of a lot of heterosexuals out of the marriage "game" too if romantic sexual life-long commitment were a requirement. I guess that your point is taken. Just ignore the part that I placed in parentheses.

 

[midcan5]

In a society that honors equal rights and freedom it is hypocritical to deny gays the same rights as heterosexuals.

Animals and children cannot enter into mutual contracts so they they are obviously outside the slippery slope arguments.

I think finally, sexuality in America, and particularly for conservatives, is so distorted and confusing they cannot face the complexity of life it represents. It will always scare them and it will be a long time before equal rights are real for everyone.


http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm

 

[mattskramer]

That's right. And persons not of legal can't marry while people of legal age can. And first cousins or brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters can't marry while people who aren't closely related can. And ugly people who can't get a date, much less find a mate, can't marry while attractive people usually don't have any problem doing so. But a gay person has every bit as much right to marry as any striaght person provided he or she meets the legal requirements to be married and marries somebody of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is--people of the opposite sex forming what is intended to be a life time contractual commitment.

If gay people want a comparable situation they should quit demanding marriage, lobby for a different family relationship, call it something other than marriage, and make it into something enviable. But it should not be limited to gays--I don't believe in special rights for anybody. It should be available to any persons who for whatever reason and with whatever sexual orientation.

If gay activists had been willing to make that compromise I believe you would have already had it. But no, you continue to tear down marriage as an important institution while demanding that same sex unions be included in it, and as a result force a great wall of resistance by those who know that marriage is deserving of being preserved as an institution. All kids deserve a mom and a dad.

In the interim you have exactly the same right to marry as anybody else does. You just have to follow the same rules.




And as always, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I wish I was independently wealthy. I wish my house didn't need repairs that I can't afford right now. I wish I could be elected senator or governor or to some important position to serve my fellow citizens and also know what that would be like. I wish my kids lived closer. I wish my spouse didn't snore. I wish the stock market would stabilize. I wish I didn't have to live in a society where people are savaged by other people and so many want what they want instead of what is best for everybody. I wish I had a chance for some do overs so I could make different choices.

Gay people do not feel any more marginalized re marriage than do any people who want very much to be married but it isn't happening for them.

You will not achieve the recognition that you want by destroying a powerful and important American institution. Should you succeed in that, you will, however, be seen as a destroyer of something that has been very good for America and humankind including yourself if you were fortunate enough to grow up in a stable, traditional two parent family. There is plenty of room, however, to build new institutions and to effect constructive change that preserves what it good and adds to it. You cannot significantly change the defintiion of what marriage is without making it something different than marriage.

http://www.write101.com/W.Tips261.htm

I don't know what's happening in your part of the world, but more and more out here, we're seeing shops that once housed nice respectable haberdashers and dress shops being taken over by establishments that have discreetly painted out the front display windows (and then added less than discreet signs promising 'adult entertainment'). These have names like "The Honey Pot," "Be Daring" and "Naughty but Nice." Naughty today means something mischievous ... but socially acceptable in an odd way. I wonder if these shop owners would be as happy to proclaim their naughtiness if they realised that naughty comes from a Middle English word meaning 'evil and wicked.'

"The word naughty at one time was an all-purpose word similar to bad. During the 16th century one could use naughty to mean “unhealthy, unpleasant, bad (with respect to weather), vicious (of an animal), inferior, or bad in quality” (one could say “very naughtie figes” or “naughty corrupt water”). All of these senses have disappeared, however, and naughty is now used mainly in contexts involving mischief or indecency. This recalls its early days in Middle English (with the form noughti), when the word was restricted to the senses “evil, hostile, ineffectual, and needy.” Middle English noughti, first recorded in the last quarter of the 14th century, was derived from nought, which primarily meant “nothing” but was also used as a noun meaning “evil” and as an adjective meaning such things as “immoral, weak, useless.” Thus naughty, in a sense, has risen from nothing, but its fortunes used to be better than they are at present." (dictionary.com)

Speaking as we were of things that are naughty, leads me to ponder the hussy. Today, your gran might refer to the neighbour's teenage daughter going out in her boob tube and mini-skirt, as a brazen hussy. But had she been around during the days when Middle English was spoken (now don't be cheeky ... your gran may be old, but she's not as old as that), she would have been referring to any of the respectable married women in her field of vision. Hussy, you see, is an alteration of houswif.

One man's fish is another man's poisson, we say... or is that poison? Today, we use poison to refer to "a substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means; something destructive or fatal" but it wasn't always so. If I tell you that the word comes originally from the Latin potio (I drink) that might help you follow its journey from beverage to blight ...

"The phrase poison potion, besides being alliterative, also consists of doublets, that is, two words that go back ultimately to the same source in another language. The source for both words is Latin p ti (stem form p ti n-), which meant “the act of drinking, a drink, or a draft, as of a medicine or poison.” Our word potion, which retains the sense “dose,” passed through Old French (pocion) on its way to Middle English (pocion), first recorded in a work composed around 1300. In Old French pocion is a learned borrowing, one that was deliberately taken from Latin in a form corresponding to the Latin form. Our spelling potion is the result of a similar impulse toward Latinization; in the late Renaissance and Enlightenment, numerous English words that had been borrowed from Old French were respelled according to the shape of their Latin ancestors. Pocion thus was changed to potion on the model of Latin p ti . But the Latin word had also passed through Vulgar Latin into Old French in the different form poison. This word meant “beverage,” “liquid dose,” and also “poison beverage, poison.” The word poison is first recorded in Middle English in a work composed around 1200." (dictionary.com)

So the word “marriage” might have a new definition? What is so terrible about that? It looks like it is getting new definitions. Look at this dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

…the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage…

Oh No, Foxfyre. You better run and hide. The sky is falling.

 

[Larkinn]

That's right. And persons not of legal can't marry while people of legal age can.

And 8 year olds can't sign contracts either. We should prolly ban gays from signing contracts as well. Oh wait, we recognize that children can't consent , are you claiming that gays can't consent either?

And first cousins or brothers and sisters or fathers and daughters can't marry while people who aren't closely related can.

Yes, we have a societal interest against inbred children. Whats the societal interest against gays marrying again?

And ugly people who can't get a date, much less find a mate, can't marry while attractive people usually don't have any problem doing so.

Well why don't you bring nature to court and sue. You do realize the vast gulf between inherent differences in biology and the government treating people differently, yes?

But a gay person has every bit as much right to marry as any striaght person provided he or she meets the legal requirements to be married and marries somebody of the opposite sex.

Lmfao...they have exactly as much right to marry, except that they can't marry the person they fall in love with...so they don't have exactly as much right to marry. Your whole "meeting the legal requirements" is a nice disclaimer, but the problem is that the legal requirements are discriminatory.

That is what marriage is--people of the opposite sex forming what is intended to be a life time contractual commitment.

Actually no. There are same sex couples who are married in mass. Its marriage and between people of the same sex. Oh and Pamela Anderson is getting married again....oh wait, let me try and think up another word for it, since it surely won't be a life time contractual commitment.

If gay people want a comparable situation they should quit demanding marriage, lobby for a different family relationship, call it something other than marriage, and make it into something enviable.

Alright I'll tell them that, since apparently they all want the same thing.

But it should not be limited to gays--I don't believe in special rights for anybody. It should be available to any persons who for whatever reason and with whatever sexual orientation.

It wouldn't be special rights for gays...after all anyone would be able to do it if they " meet the legal requirements". Oh wait, you mean if its for straights only its non-discriminatory and completely open, but if its for gays only its discriminatory and you don't want "special rights" for them?

If gay activists had been willing to make that compromise I believe you would have already had it.

Haha...right.

But no, you continue to tear down marriage as an important institution
while demanding that same sex unions be included in it, and as a result force a great wall of resistance by those who know that marriage is deserving of being preserved as an institution.

Well allowing gays to get married would just RIP that institution apart. I've noticed in Mass. that nobody is getting married anymore now that gays can get married. The divorce rate shot up to 100% and people are just having sex on the streets. Oh wait...the institution is exactly the same as it is in other states. Well so much for that "omg the sky is falling" theory.

All kids deserve a mom and a dad.

All kids deserve to be raised in a safe, humane, and loving environment. Gender roles aren't necessary for this. If you ***** spending all this money to fight gay marriage really cared about "all kids deserving a mom and a dad", you'd stop putting your money into fighting gay marriage and start putting it into improving the shithole that is the foster care system.

In the interim you have exactly the same right to marry as anybody else does. You just have to follow the same rules.

So if I am a male I can marry a male, just like all the females can?

And as always, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I wish I was independently wealthy. I wish my house didn't need repairs that I can't afford right now. I wish I could be elected senator or governor or to some important position to serve my fellow citizens and also know what that would be like. I wish my kids lived closer. I wish my spouse didn't snore. I wish the stock market would stabilize. I wish I didn't have to live in a society where people are savaged by other people and so many want what they want instead of what is best for everybody. I wish I had a chance for some do overs so I could make different choices.

I know...silly people wishing their government didn't discriminate against them. Silly 18th century blacks wishing they weren't pieces of property. Silly 19th century women wanting to vote and such. Silly 1994 Rwandans wishing they weren't getting hacked to death with machetes. I mean just because people aren't being treated fairly doesn't mean we should fix it, right? After all the world isn't perfect and who really gives a **** about those fags anyway, right?

Gay people do not feel any more marginalized re marriage than do any people who want very much to be married but it isn't happening for them.

Thanks for telling gay people how they feel first of all

But besides that, its absurd. Do you really not recognize the difference between not finding someone you love and the state telling you that you cannot marry the person you love? There is a massive difference between those two things. Being unable to find a partner isn't marginalization. Its nature shitting on you, being unlucky, whatev. But that is NOT the same as the government denying you that privilege and discriminating against you merely because it is bigoted.

You will not achieve the recognition that you want by destroying a powerful and important American institution.

You seem to be assuming I'm gay. I'm not. And last I checked mass. still has straights marrying all the time. I know, I know...the divorce rate is 50%, Britney spears has las vegas weddings, we have more and more cohabiting people out there...but its gay marriage that will destroy marriage.

So, tell me exactly how thats going to happen again? Please explain to me how letting gays share in this "powerful and important American institution" will destroy it. Oh, and if its so powerful and important, wouldn't you want your fellow human beings to share in it?

Its amazing. Conservatives say that no sex before marriage, abstinence only, blah blah blah...but if your gay all that goes out the window.

Should you succeed in that, you will, however, be seen as a destroyer of something that has been very good for America and humankind including yourself if you were fortunate enough to grow up in a stable, traditional two parent family.

I grew up in a nontraditional two parent family. I wouldn't change it for the world. And how exactly has it been good for America and humankind?

 

[jreeves]

Err, this is an article about how women and men act differently, and that effects how they raise children. Really? No shit, sherlock. There is, however, no evidence that they turn out WORSE, just different. In some respects evidence seems they may turn out BETTER...males raised by lesbian parents are "more chaste and have less partners" according to the study. So, shall we in the name of abstinence only programs have all males be raised by lesbians?

Oh, the other idiotic thing that this article does is that it provides little evidence, only cites. Cites can be helpful, but the interesting thing is that most of the books written were written in the eighties. I know...in the eighties there was just a plethora of kids with gay parents to choose from to study and discover how they are different.

Actually that isn't research so much as it is cherry picking negative studies and leaving out the positive ones. On the first page the author pretty much says that any study that supports homosexual parents is flawed and any study that goes against homosexual parents is accurate. Ridiculously shoddy.[/QUOTE]

Williams noted that Patterson found, and left unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to find its way into her conclusions.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)
LOL....Sounds like the different ways women and men raise children to genius...Brillant I tell you...no it's about the difference of homosexual and heterosexual relationships in respect to childrearing....

 

[Foxfyre]

And 8 year olds can't sign contracts either. We should prolly ban gays from signing contracts as well. Oh wait, we recognize that children can't consent , are you claiming that gays can't consent either?



Yes, we have a societal interest against inbred children. Whats the societal interest against gays marrying again?




Well why don't you bring nature to court and sue. You do realize the vast gulf between inherent differences in biology and the government treating people differently, yes?



Lmfao...they have exactly as much right to marry, except that they can't marry the person they fall in love with...so they don't have exactly as much right to marry. Your whole "meeting the legal requirements" is a nice disclaimer, but the problem is that the legal requirements are discriminatory.



Actually no. There are same sex couples who are married in mass. Its marriage and between people of the same sex. Oh and Pamela Anderson is getting married again....oh wait, let me try and think up another word for it, since it surely won't be a life time contractual commitment.



Alright I'll tell them that, since apparently they all want the same thing.



It wouldn't be special rights for gays...after all anyone would be able to do it if they " meet the legal requirements". Oh wait, you mean if its for straights only its non-discriminatory and completely open, but if its for gays only its discriminatory and you don't want "special rights" for them?



Haha...right.



Well allowing gays to get married would just RIP that institution apart. I've noticed in Mass. that nobody is getting married anymore now that gays can get married. The divorce rate shot up to 100% and people are just having sex on the streets. Oh wait...the institution is exactly the same as it is in other states. Well so much for that "omg the sky is falling" theory.



All kids deserve to be raised in a safe, humane, and loving environment. Gender roles aren't necessary for this. If you ***** spending all this money to fight gay marriage really cared about "all kids deserving a mom and a dad", you'd stop putting your money into fighting gay marriage and start putting it into improving the shithole that is the foster care system.





So if I am a male I can marry a male, just like all the females can?



I know...silly people wishing their government didn't discriminate against them. Silly 18th century blacks wishing they weren't pieces of property. Silly 19th century women wanting to vote and such. Silly 1994 Rwandans wishing they weren't getting hacked to death with machetes. I mean just because people aren't being treated fairly doesn't mean we should fix it, right? After all the world isn't perfect and who really gives a **** about those fags anyway, right?



Thanks for telling gay people how they feel first of all

But besides that, its absurd. Do you really not recognize the difference between not finding someone you love and the state telling you that you cannot marry the person you love? There is a massive difference between those two things. Being unable to find a partner isn't marginalization. Its nature shitting on you, being unlucky, whatev. But that is NOT the same as the government denying you that privilege and discriminating against you merely because it is bigoted.



You seem to be assuming I'm gay. I'm not. And last I checked mass. still has straights marrying all the time. I know, I know...the divorce rate is 50%, Britney spears has las vegas weddings, we have more and more cohabiting people out there...but its gay marriage that will destroy marriage.

So, tell me exactly how thats going to happen again? Please explain to me how letting gays share in this "powerful and important American institution" will destroy it. Oh, and if its so powerful and important, wouldn't you want your fellow human beings to share in it?

Its amazing. Conservatives say that no sex before marriage, abstinence only, blah blah blah...but if your gay all that goes out the window.



I grew up in a nontraditional two parent family. I wouldn't change it for the world. And how exactly has it been good for America and humankind?

Again if marriage is so terrible, why do you wish to inflict in on the poor gay people? The way you denigrate marriage, we could interpret your wish that gays experience it too to actually be homophobic.

I have already cited my case and your restating it in a different way is not going to change my mind. I don't care whether you appreciate marriage, and I am opposed to gays marrying under the same institution that currently exists because that would grant special rights to gays that would not be enjoyed by anybody else and that would also change the definition of marriage to something that it is not. I believe marriage to be a necessary and valuable American institution and I do not wish it to be weakened in any way. I prefer not to be drawn into non sequitors that will further derail this thread.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege regulated by law. Every man, woman, and child is equally protected by that law and equally subject to the law. There is no inequity and no discrimination against anybody based on race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation.

Once the gay community acknowledges that and agrees that marriage is worth preserving for the sake of the children if for no other reason, then all of us can work on ways to meet some real needs of people who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not wish to marry as marriage is currently defined.

Now if that doesn't suit you, fine. One of the unalienable rights we have under our Constitution is the right to think however we choose to think. My opinion has been developed over a very long period and after much soul searching. You won't change my mind with the same tired arguments that have been debated now for years.

 

[Larkinn]

Williams noted that Patterson found, and left unreported, similar differences. Likewise, Williams noted that Lewis found social and emotional difficulties in the lives of children of homosexual parents, but such data did not seem to find its way into her conclusions.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual young people were at increased risks of major depression . . . generalized anxiety disorder . . . conduct disorder . . . nicotine dependence . . . multiple disorders . . . suicidal ideation . . . suicide attempts. (p. 876)
LOL....Sounds like the different ways women and men raise children to genius...Brillant I tell you...no it's about the difference of homosexual and heterosexual relationships in respect to childrearing....

You seem to have missed this part of my post.

Actually that isn't research so much as it is cherry picking negative studies and leaving out the positive ones

 

[jreeves]

You seem to have missed this part of my post.

Of course because you don't agree right? LOL

 

[Larkinn]

Again if marriage is so terrible, why do you wish to inflict in on the poor gay people? The way you denigrate marriage, we could interpret your wish that gays experience it too to actually be homophobic.

Please cite where I said that marriage is terrible. Please do try and read what I say and not to make shit up. Besides the fact that even if I DID think that marriage was " so terrible" this would be an asinine argument. I very much think I wouldn't enjoy living in Alabama. But if you want too, I fully support that. I know...its really hard to recognize that other people might want what you don't

I have already cited my case and your restating it in a different way is not going to change my mind.

Nothing is going to change your mind. Generally these bullshit arguments are attempts to rationalize homophobia. Rational thinking won't get anywhere, but what the hell I might as well give it a shot.

I don't care whether you appreciate marriage, and I am opposed to gays marrying under the same institution that currently exists because that would grant special rights to gays that would not be enjoyed by anybody else and that would also change the definition of marriage to something that it is not.

Err, what? So giving gays the rights to marry would "grant special rights to gays that would not be enjoyed by anybody else"? You are aware, I hope, that straights are not part of the gay population and that they can marry, right? This is why I tend to think these arguments stem from homophobia because they always start out semi-rational and as the arguments get torn apart you result to absurd arguments like you don't want to give gays "special rights". Special rights....like equality. Sorry but equality isn't a special right.

I believe marriage to be a necessary and valuable American institution and I do not wish it to be weakened in any way. I prefer not to be drawn into non sequitors that will further derail this thread.

Yes, I know you believe that. I asked why. Repeating the assertion over and over again provides no support for your case.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege regulated by law. Every man, woman, and child is equally protected by that law and equally subject to the law.

Marriage is a privilege. But you have a right to not be discriminated against based on your sexual orientation. This is why not allowing gays to marry is denying them a right. Its not the right to marry, but the right not to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

There is no inequity and no discrimination against anybody based on race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, or sexual orientation.

...

Right. Deluded much?

Once the gay community acknowledges that and agrees that marriage is worth preserving for the sake of the children if for no other reason, then all of us can work on ways to meet some real needs of people who, for whatever reason, cannot or do not wish to marry as marriage is currently defined.

Once gays recognize that society can discriminate them for "the children", then you can move on, eh? Gonna give any reasons why that is for the "sake of the children" or going to keep on with the meaningless rhetoric?

Now if that doesn't suit you, fine. One of the unalienable rights we have under our Constitution is the right to think however we choose to think. My opinion has been developed over a very long period and after much soul searching. You won't change my mind with the same tired arguments that have been debated now for years.

Since you've barely responded to my post, I don't doubt that nothing will change your mind. Feel free to search your soul all you want, but try searching your mind a little bit. This rationalization of discrimination is ridiculous and intellectually and morally bankrupt. That and frankly, its quite stupid. Even the holocaust deniers, with the unenviable position of denying something that there is a shit-ton of evidence for managed to do a better job than you are doing.

Its discrimination. And you are supporting it. You are no better than the ***** who tried to rationalize Jim Crow. Congrats on that.

 

[Larkinn]

Of course because you don't agree right? LOL

No, because I know for a fact (and its admitted in your biased little sites) that there are plenty of studies that support homosexual parents. They are just all somehow flawed. Why are they flawed? Oh because the "experts" all agree that they are.

But of course thats enough evidence for someone who really wants to explore the issue like you, right?

By the way...you know anyone with gay parents?

 

[jreeves]

No, because I know for a fact (and its admitted in your biased little sites) that there are plenty of studies that support homosexual parents. They are just all somehow flawed. Why are they flawed? Oh because the "experts" all agree that they are.

But of course thats enough evidence for someone who really wants to explore the issue like you, right?

By the way...you know anyone with gay parents?

I know that by genetics women and men have different things to bring to child rearing. If only one side of the gender equation is there obviously the child misses out on the second side of the gender equation. This obvious right? Or are you saying that women and men are genetically wired the same?

 

[Larkinn]

I know that by genetics women and men have different things to bring to child rearing. If only one side of the gender equation is there obviously the child misses out on the second side of the gender equation. This obvious right? Or are you saying that women and men are genetically wired the same?

Wait so kids of gay parents live in societies where there are only people of that sex? Where are these places?

By the way...why are you assuming that the things that each gender provide are always good? It could very well be that one gender is substantially better at child rearing than the other. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, despite genetic differences lesbians and gays tend to not fall into the gender stereotypes.

 

[jreeves]

Wait so kids of gay parents live in societies where there are only people of that sex? Where are these places?

By the way...why are you assuming that the things that each gender provide are always good? It could very well be that one gender is substantially better at child rearing than the other. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, despite genetic differences lesbians and gays tend to not fall into the gender stereotypes.

Wait so kids of gay parents live in societies where there are only people of that sex? Where are these places?

I didn't know societies have taken to child rearing...where is this? No, I'm not assuming, there are good things both sexes bring to child rearing. And if one is absent then the child misses out on that side of the gender equation.

Oh, and if you haven't noticed, despite genetic differences lesbians and gays tend to not fall into the gender stereotypes

Still that being said they aren't genetically wired the same as a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Larkinn]

I didn't know societies have taken to child rearing...where is this? No, I'm not assuming, there are good things both sexes bring to child rearing. And if one is absent then the child misses out on that side of the gender equation.

Please name those things.

Still that being said they aren't genetically wired the same as a member of the opposite sex.

Please provide evidence of this claim.

 

[jreeves]

Please name those things.



Please provide evidence of this claim.

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

 

[jreeves]

Please name those things.



Please provide evidence of this claim.

Please see my original post for the things they miss out on.

 

[Larkinn]

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

And those effect child rearing how exactly?

Please see my original post for the things they miss out on.

Your OP is citing 2 studies which I've shown to be ludicrous.

 

[jreeves]

And those effect child rearing how exactly?



Your OP is citing 2 studies which I've shown to be ludicrous.

No you didn't show it to be ludicrous, you gave your opinion. Which we all know are like a holes, everyone has one and most of them stink.