What to do about the gays?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Its also understandable how a lot of straight American couples don't agree that two gay people can share the same bond in the ways that they do.

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

[bobblehead]

Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you)

What in the world did you mean by that statement?

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

When you say there are more couples looking to adopt than kids.......do you mean infants? I can't believe you could possibly mean all minor children.

yes, I meant infants, in the case of kids who have passed the stage of having a chance at infant adoption their are plenty....and most gay couples aren't interested in them either.

As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

[bobblehead]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

Actually most gay couples have to go over seas to adopt, so your last argument doesn't really hold any water. Adopting a white USA born infant in this country is nearly impossible for an upstanding white couple.

Actually, that WAS my point. I am saying why put kids in a nontraditional situation when plenty of loving traditional situations are available. And as far as international adoption goes (gay or straight) it usually is nothing more than buying a baby. I have been trying for years to figure out how a celebrity can adopt a baby internationally(stories where the greatful parent was happy for thier child's opportunity) when the common person can't adopt any baby who has a living parent.

[3irty1]

Its also understandable how a lot of straight American couples don't agree that two gay people can share the same bond in the ways that they do.

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion. Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.

Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples. I imagine the lifestyle of being openly gay is full of much worse experiences seeing as how much of society is not completely accepting. I don't see how anyone is being treated unfairly the way things are now nor do I see it as a huge priority to make being gay any more public than it already is.

In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.

[Deputy Nutz]

First time a gay dude shits out a kid, let them adopt. Not before.

Well if this doesn't seal the argument for the anti-adoption crowd I don't know what will.

What if just a guy wants to adopt a kid, without a woman. Crazy I know but whats the difference though? It is not natural for a single man to raise a child he didn't conceive.

Up until recently they have been rejected out of hand. Now that single parenthood is becoming much more common (thanx to welfare laws that kicked fathers out of the house in order to collect a check thus ensuring an underclass of citizens that will continue to vote for you) single men and women are allowed to adopt if they are fit.

I feel the same way about gay adoption, we aren't to a stage at this point where it is quite common and "normal" so at this point I have to be against it. If in the future society becomes much more accepting and it becomes more "normal" than I may be convinced otherwise.

PS....just to add a point, there are a lot more hetero couples looking to adopt than there are kids needing to be adopted...if that changed the other way I may also be persuaded that being adopted by a stable gay couple beats an orphanage or foster home.

Actually most gay couples have to go over seas to adopt, so your last argument doesn't really hold any water. Adopting a white USA born infant in this country is nearly impossible for an upstanding white couple.

Actually, that WAS my point. I am saying why put kids in a nontraditional situation when plenty of loving traditional situations are available. And as far as international adoption goes (gay or straight) it usually is nothing more than buying a baby. I have been trying for years to figure out how a celebrity can adopt a baby internationally(stories where the greatful parent was happy for thier child's opportunity) when the common person can't adopt any baby who has a living parent.

Most of these children from overseas are orphans. It is actually a really shitty why to have to get a kid, besides their is a high number of children coming over that have attatchment disorders, Autism, and many other mental and emotional disorders. Outside of that I really don't understand the above post.

I have several gay couple friends that have adopted children, I also have an uncle that is married to a black woman, and talk about nontraditional(never heard of that before), they have been on the foster to adopt list for the past 5 years for a young child. They are looked upon as the plague from our lovely government institution that handles the adoption process. I am sorry, I stopped buying the nontraditional verse the traditional situations, and if I wanted to raise a child the last thing I would worry about is what others consider traditional. I am hopefully providing for my child and giving them a wonderful life, regardless of it being considered a traditional upbringing.

I am a stay at home father with my kids, and sure I know of some people mostly other men that think I have lost my traditional value system, and have little respect for what I do. Thats too bad I like most of those people, but I am not going to change what I do because someone thinks or lacks respect for my maleness. You don't like it, or if other don't like it, tough shit, my kids are better for it, and I am sure that is exactly how two gay loving parents feel about it as well.

[SkinBasket]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

[Zool]

Im sending them to your house to raise your children metro.

[hoosier]

[As far as what I meant by that comment, welfare recipients for the most part are single mothers. They don't allow a married woman to get said benefits very easily or often. They basically make sure that if you want to feed your baby you have to kick any man outta the house....especially if he has a job. By doing this you pretty much assure the mother has no chance at any kind of work or career other than being a momma. This creates an "underclass" citizen who's basic employment prospects for the next 18 years are walmart while jonny is in school (but if you take that job you lose welfare benefits). Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home, take care of jonny, keep from building an actual family and future, and most importantly vote for me. Hope that clears it up.

This is every bit as simplistic and insulting as if I were to say that Republicans don't give a damn about the poor because they advocate reduction of social services. You say that you want dialogue and civility but then you come up with these silly caricatures of "liberals" and of how they are supposedly shaping our society--what exactly are you hoping to accomplish if not to antagonize?

[SkinBasket]

Im sending them to your house to raise your children metro.

That would actually be ideal. Can I get an extra order of lesbians? I've always gotten on better with the lesbos than the queers.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

[Partial]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think tyrone, that at some point your disdain for conservatives will end and you will stop reading into peoples words (at least mine), I hope so, because I find you somewhat intelligent and capable of making a point. You make a good one here, albeit in a roundabout way. I am not a "hate filled monger" or any of the other things conservatives are labeled.

I have no disdain for conservatives. I have disdain for stupid people and most republicans. Conservative is a compliment.

I never said or implied you were a hate monger.

The responsibility in communication lies with the sender, not the receiver. IF you wish me and others not to read into what you write, then perhaps take some time to review what you have written.

I only addressed what you wrote...that children would be subject to undue teasing. YOu like to make statements that you feel are truth or factual, yet you have no support or basis for..you rely solely on your opinion or anecdotal evidence...that seems "liberal"..a feeling.

I merely noted that if the criteria is undue teasing...then children of mixed religions or ethinicities are apt to fact that as well. Then, following your logic then we should be against that as well...not against them as it relates to law or their personal happiness..but, based on the effect it will have on children.

I for one, don't want my decisions or country ruled by the impact on children.

[LL2]

5 pages and you people still haven't figured out what to do with the gays.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Come on people; you are tap dancing around the issue.

You are not talking about the legal and financial aspects Gay unions.

a) There is the loss of Social Security Benefits.
b) There is the transfer of property where there is the death a partner.
c) There is the hospitlal denial of patient rights when partners get
physically seperated and the wrong medical care is given
against the wishes of the partners.
d) Credit scores are not given when finances are comingled.

- - - - - - - - --

Lets deal with the facts and not just emotions; please.

Such drama about this should be replaced by imperical thought.

well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please translate?

I think we just found Woody's doppelganger.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion.

Your statement that "it is equal now" is very strange. You are aware that WI prohibts gay couples from forming legally-recognized lifetime partnerships? I assume you know about the constitutional amendment that passed.

Maybe you can clarify. Are you suggesting that gays have equal treatment because they are afforded the opportunity to not be gay, to pursue heterosexual marriage just like everybody else?

Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.

Again, I'm not advocating that the state sanction gay marriage, I'd prefer that the state just offer only civil unions to everyone. Its obvious that "marriage" is a religious question, people are not of one mind.
But explain to me how giving homosexual couples legal rights forces you to believe they are just as good as straight couples?

Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples.

If the state annulled your marraige, and said you could not have the legal benefits of marrying again, I think you might not be so devil-may-care.

In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.

It's both, but I agree with you to a degree. For our current era, civil unions do the job, pressing for marriage is a mistake.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

Yaah, baby

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's far less likely to happen today, because the kids really just don't give a shit. The people I knew were very active in school and their kid didn't miss out on a thing.

I think you are very wrong about that. Sure, by like 8th grade. But a kid can handle it by 8th grade. Any kid is going to mortified in elementary school, and c'mon, who doesn't remember the loser that was always picked on?!? That always starts at a young age, like 1st or 2nd grade and just continues on.

P. I'm talking about people I knew (until one of them got a job in Pennsylvania last summer). I'm not talking about an opinion here. This family was in our school from kindergarten through 2nd grade--and NO ONE GAVE A SHIT. The kid didn't get picked on, the parents were active and it was NO BIG DEAL. Period. End of story.

One instance does not equal fact, thats all I am saying.

Ty, I was joking about the manly thing. Just funny how you wrote it.

While many have made the bonobo argument, I just think bonobos are sluts. Its not natural as reproduction is supposed to be the biproduct of sex, and obviously two men cannot make a child.

My main beef with two men raising a child is the child doesn't have any say in the matter. Plus, with a man and women adopting the child it isn't immediately obvious to bystanders that the child was adopted.

Homosexuality exists in other species. Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Many species are hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea.

Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves.

As for sex for only reproduction...that is a longstanding argument, however, i guess this isn't one of you 7 areas that you know something about.

Species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction. Could be to show dominance, etc...but, many believe it is for PLEASURE!!

Also, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

Sorry, but your "against nature" argument is rejected by science.

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

Like I said, it exists in nature because some animals are just sluts. See Bonobos.

Well, we can clearly see how you react to science and being proven wrong.

Evolution isn't a one to one thing...it is by a species. If it serves the species to have more males there to protect the species...then it serves and evolutionary purpose.

BTW, I wouldn't be basing your argument what it takes to create a baby. Science has established that in the future, men wont' be necessary. I don't think you wanna base the need for men strictly on reproduction.


http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...roduction.html

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/04/22/53569.html

"Japanese researchers have demonstrated for the first time how mammals can reproduce without a male, leading to the birth of apparently healthy baby mice by mixing two sets of female genes inside an egg."

[MJZiggy]

Ok... Then take your science, two guys, and produce a baby. Then I'll listen.

[/quote]

Two men, a good time, one turkey baster and a surrogate. Boom. Same as for a hetero couple I know. Now you promised to listen. I'm holding you to that...

[3irty1]

Sure. And I'm OK with them enforcing their feelings on the members of their church, but not on EVERYBODY through the government. Government is there to treat eveyone equally.

It is equal and it is secular the way it stands right now. Everyone has the same restrictions regardless of religion.

Your statement that "it is equal now" is very strange. You are aware that WI prohibts gay couples from forming legally-recognized lifetime partnerships? I assume you know about the constitutional amendment that passed.

Maybe you can clarify. Are you suggesting that gays have equal treatment because they are afforded the opportunity to not be gay, to pursue heterosexual marriage just like everybody else?

Its just as easy to flip what you said around and say that gay couples are trying to force the belief that gay marriage is just as good as straight marriage.

Again, I'm not advocating that the state sanction gay marriage, I'd prefer that the state just offer only civil unions to everyone. Its obvious that "marriage" is a religious question, people are not of one mind.
But explain to me how giving homosexual couples legal rights forces you to believe they are just as good as straight couples?

Maybe I just don't sympathize because I feel that not being able to marry is hardly "suffering" for gay couples.

If the state annulled your marraige, and said you could not have the legal benefits of marrying again, I think you might not be so devil-may-care.

In my opinion the gay marriage issue is much more about gay pride than gay rights.

It's both, but I agree with you to a degree. For our current era, civil unions do the job, pressing for marriage is a mistake.

I guess I misunderstood what you were all about because I agree that the correct action should be to fix civil unions to make them more convenient.

[Freak Out]

How about we let any consenting adult that wants to get married do so and stay the fuck out of other peoples business?