quade 4 #126 February 25, 2004 Quote But my position stands that a well matched husband and wife can provide a perspective and upbringing that no homosexual couple can. Is this just your opinion or do you have some sort of study to back that up?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #127 February 25, 2004 Quoteboogers that don't come from a nose can't possibly ever be green. Convice me that's true. I've never seen a green ear booger, have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #128 February 25, 2004 "by saying that because nature has biologically prevented two people from having children, and therefore they shouldn't be married, you are also excluding all the hetero folks with fertility issues, my own parents included!" No, that is not what I said. I said that nature has excluded gay couples from reproducing, demonstrating that nature is very clear on who and should not raise children. Allowing gay marriage would reinforce gay couples who want to adopt children, which is against nature. Therefore, gays should not be permitted to marry, or raise children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #129 February 25, 2004 WHOA!! Rhino m u s t t t s t a y o u t of t h i s s s t h r e a d ..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #130 February 25, 2004 QuoteNo reason why a gay couple couldn't work with friends and family to provide opposite sex role models as well. No, there's no reason why that wouldn't work. But it's such an unnecessary effort to sidestep the obvious solution to giving a child what he needs - a mom and a dad! It's almost laughable to me how much work is going into coming up with possible ways to make it work when the way it should be is obvious. Boy meets girl, marriage, children, children have mom and dad, happiness. I guess I'm a bit of an idealist, even though I realize that unfortunately we live in a complex world where these complicated "ways to make it work" are becoming viewed as necessary.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #131 February 25, 2004 QuoteI said that nature has excluded gay couples from reproducing, demonstrating that nature is very clear on who and should not raise children What is your opinion on couples with known fertility problems, or who have had a vasectomy/hysterectomy, or who are older and past the age of reproduction? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #132 February 25, 2004 Nice anaolgy, but it doesn't make your case. Granting children to gay couples can hardly be compared to providing mobility to the handicapped. A very typical, and weak, liberal point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #133 February 25, 2004 by your argument, though, nature is being clear on who can and can't raise children by not permitting certain pairings to have kids. Your argument could be equally applied to gay couples as well as infertile hetero couples. you have not adequately explained the difference. you have two people who, when you put them together, can't have kids. seems the same to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #134 February 25, 2004 QuoteBut it's such an unnecessary effort to sidestep the obvious solution to giving a child what he needs - a mom and a dad! Who says a child needs a mom and a dad? Exactly what is it that they can provide that a dad and a dad or a mom and a mom or just a mom or just a dad can't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #135 February 25, 2004 QuoteNo, that is not what I said. I said that nature has excluded gay couples from reproducing, demonstrating that nature is very clear on who and should not raise children. Allowing gay marriage would reinforce gay couples who want to adopt children, which is against nature. Therefore, gays should not be permitted to marry, or raise children. That's a ridiculous assumption. There are plenty of examples in nature of animals that require two opposite sex mates to reproduce, yet only one, or many times neither of the parents are involved in raising the offspring. The coupling of heterosexual humans for life is a man-made event. I contend that mating for life is against nature. There are many more natural examples to back up my theory, than yours. The only reason marriage exists was a man-made effort to preserve land and property rights. Before that, humans didn't mate for life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #136 February 25, 2004 Quotehow many homosexual couples have you observed personally? I'd just like to know where you're getting your opinion from. I dunno, a couple dozen. Homosexual couples with kids, I'll be honest - zero. I'm sure where you'll take that, and it's fine with me.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #137 February 25, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe not, but it can and does lead to AIDS and other nsty things. There is what a doctor called an epidemic in Gay syphillus going on right now, but it is being kept reasonably quiet. What is next . you've got to be kidding me . . . oh that's right straight sex prevents AIDS and syphilis, look at al the people in Africa so because gay sex leads to STD's we should discriminate. Oh, I’ve got an idea we should start colonies to put these people in . . . Too late. Fire Island, Provincetown, Key West, San Francisco, New Hope... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #138 February 25, 2004 They should be able to have children by adoption, medical treatment, or whatever methods can assist them. But, I see you coming from a mile away on this tact. Just becasue a man and woman medically cannot have children, does not put them on par with same sex couples who were never biolgically meant to bare children together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #139 February 25, 2004 QuotePlease see my recent replies to bytch and kev. I think same sex couples *can* raise children, but I don't think they can provide the same broad perspective to those children that a well matched husband and wife can. Why? You've said this before but haven't supported it with any convincing reasons. I don't know how to better explain that's what you don't get. I understand you disagree with me and that's fine. I like a good debate, just give me something to debate. edited 'cause I kaint spel.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #140 February 25, 2004 QuoteNo, there's no reason why that wouldn't work. But it's such an unnecessary effort to sidestep the obvious solution to giving a child what he needs - a mom and a dad! It's almost laughable to me how much work is going into coming up with possible ways to make it work when the way it should be is obvious. I don't know...I think it would be a lot more work for a gay man to stay in a loving stable relationship with a woman than to find a female influence for his child. QuoteBoy meets girl, marriage, children, children have mom and dad, happiness. That first part would preclude the happiness part for most gay people, I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #141 February 25, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- boogers that don't come from a nose can't possibly ever be green. Convice me that's true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've never seen a green ear booger, have you? How about from an infected ear.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #142 February 25, 2004 QuoteQuote But my position stands that a well matched husband and wife can provide a perspective and upbringing that no homosexual couple can. Is this just your opinion or do you have some sort of study to back that up? Just my opinion. Do you have studies to back up your opinions? That's half sarcasm, as "studies" can be used to show just about anything when it's something this complex. People are always going to disagree. How do you objectively rate the devlopment of a human being? "On a scale of 1 to 100, children raised by gay couples receive..." So yeh, it's just my opinion. How about you?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #143 February 25, 2004 QuoteBut, I see you coming from a mile away on this tact. Just becasue a man and woman medically cannot have children, does not put them on par with same sex couples who were never biolgically meant to bare children together. HOW is it different? you keep saying its different, but you have not explained why or how. You still have two people who can't have kids without medical intervention. oh, and I'm really hoping you mean to BEAR children. There's a pretty big difference. One means to carry a child, and the other is kinda on par with Michael Jackson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuFantasma 0 #144 February 25, 2004 While the argument for siblings marrying may raise the same phylosophical questions, I would suggest that polygamy falls within the same category. Why would the State feel compelled to prohibit the choice of marriage partners? Religious arguments are certainly plausible but constitutionally unacceptable (Separation of State & Church). I am against ANY constitutional ammendment for the explicit purpose of denying rights to a subset of individuals based on whatever reasons. The Constitution is about protecting inherent freedoms and rights.Y yo, pa' vivir con miedo, prefiero morir sonriendo, con el recuerdo vivo". - Ruben Blades, "Adan Garcia" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #145 February 25, 2004 See response to wmw999. It's a good tact to take, but it does not hold water. You cannot compare a medically defunct heterosexual couple to a biologically incompactable homosexual one. One cannot have children due to one medical reason or another, the other was NEVER meant to have them. Surely you can see that difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #146 February 25, 2004 QuoteThe Constitution is about protecting inherent freedoms and rights. That is the issue. Apparently many people believe they have an inherent right to intrude on other people's activities, and an inherent right not to see them queers out in public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #147 February 25, 2004 Sooooo sorry for my grammatical short-comings and mis-use of words. YES, I meant bear. But then again, you brought up MJ, and child molestation during a gay marriage debate, not me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #148 February 25, 2004 >Men and women are different. I realize that this is a sweeping >generalization, but it's true. Obviously, all men are not identical. > Likewise, all women are not identical. But in general men and > women have different physical, mental, and emotional qualities. I > think that a properly matched man and woman can provide the > widest range of "parent qualities", and thus the best upbringing, to > a child who needs a broad perspective. There are far more differences between a Pakistani man and an Eskimo man than between two Harvard-educated NYC lawyers of different sexes. The Pakistani/Indian set of people would make far more diverse parents than the two laywers, and hence by your criteria would be better parents. What are the hard and fast "different parent qualities" that you can't get in a gay couple? Is it that two gay men could not show their son their vagina for a sex-ed thing? Do you think that a child raised with two women will not realize there are men in the world, or talk to any of them? Are children raised by a white couple horribly warped because they never learn to relate to blacks, or asians, or inuits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #149 February 25, 2004 >It's a good tact to take, but it does not hold water. You cannot > compare a medically defunct heterosexual couple to a biologically > incompactable homosexual one. One cannot have children due to > one medical reason or another, the other was NEVER meant to have > them. If a medical procedure like IVF allowed two gay women to have children (and the children were genetically their offspring) would that make gay marriage OK with you? Because that will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Treejumps 0 #150 February 25, 2004 I think you know what my answer would be on that. Just becasue medical advancements make something possible, does not make it desireable. Why not just create a clone? That does not take any partner, but most people realize that nature never intended life to be created in that way either. Thanks for the fun. This is better than Crossfire, but lets face it, nobody is convincing anybody of anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
