So Happy For Mad And Harlan

[Joemailman]

Gay marriage legalized in California.

Will all the Packerrats be invited to the wedding?

[MJZiggy]

I thought they were going to push for a constitutional amendment to override the court's decision. They better hurry if that amendment has any support.


BTW, is it Mad and Harlan day and I just missed the memo or what???

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No surprise. San Francisco was the birth place of the countercultural movement.

Back in the 60's the CIA used to pose as hippies to distribute LSD to many a fine flower folks .It was part of the cia's mind altering experiment called Project UKULTRA. LSD succeeded in preventing the existence of a peaceful utopia. However, Project MKULTRA was a complete disaster. All it did was gave birth to a generation of long-haired, tree hugging heroine users: the fine flower folks of the 70's.

Back to the topic of this thread.

[texaspackerbacker]

The immediate effects of this won't be all that harmful. There are secondary implications, however, in a whole variety of areas: inheritance, property ownership, custody of children, military service, etc. Even then, there won't be any extreme effects around the country if there is no forced recognition of those California (or Massachusetts) gay marriages in other states and with Federal issues like GI benefits.

I don't think there was forced recognition of Massachusetts gay marriages, so there probably won't be with California's either.

Thus, no big deal.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

No surprise. San Francisco was the birth place of the countercultural movement.

Back in the 60's the CIA used to pose as hippies to distribute LSD to many a fine flower folks .It was part of the cia's mind altering experiment called Project UKULTRA. LSD succeeded in preventing the existence of a peaceful utopia. However, Project UKULTRA was a complete disaster. All it did was gave birth to a generation of long-haired, tree hugging heroine users: the fine flower folks of the 70's.

Back to the topic of this thread.

It was MKultra...not UK.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

My bad. I was thinking U as in Ultimatum. Ur right its MK, not UK.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm ready to make a commitment, but I can't see moving to CA. And I expect Mad will never move too far from his Raiders.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey Joemailman, I finalized noticed your avatar, pretty funny. looks like McCain is getting a good whiff of Bush's armpit.

If you ever get tired of that avatar, here's another pic:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/images/2008/03/23/obamawr300_jxrlq8nc.jpg

[sheepshead]

liberal judges pass what the voters rejected handedly. I dont really care who marries whom or what people do in their bedrooms, but the laws should be put to a vote. Not the whim of 4 liberal whack jobs.

It'll get overturned by the way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

liberal judges pass what the voters rejected handedly. I dont really care who marries whom or what people do in their bedrooms, but the laws should be put to a vote. Not the whim of 4 liberal whack jobs.

It'll get overturned by the way.

We live in a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy. The voters or legislators can't do things that violate peoples rights (as the judges interpret the constituion.) Maybe you'd like a new system without a constitution, but you better know what you're doing, the constitution has worked pretty well on the whole.

If the judges are whack jobs, that's because the voters or the elected officials who appointed them chose whack jobs. Blame democracy. More than likely, you just don't like the idea of a constitution when it doesn't work the way you'd like.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The constitution is not by any mean flawless.

Look at the 2nd amendment. The fucking right to keep and bear arms.

Homosexualism is biological, not environmental.. It should not only be legalized everywhere in the US but also throughout the whole fucking world (open up your eyes, Iran!!!).

Here's an excerpt from Chap. 21 of Ted is trapped in the closet (the whole chap will be posted here if madtownpacker allows it to be posted here)

Said Ball, “it is alright, Ted, just be yourself
You need not try to tempt fate
Cos some male birds are meant to mate
Some lovers are meant to be
Lovers like you and me

[texaspackerbacker]

Homosexuality is neither biological nor environmental (who ever even said it was environmental?). It is a matter of CHOICE--an alternative lifestyle. As such, it should be legal and unrestricted. However, it should NOT be legitimatized and subsidized by the government as an equal alternative to normal heterosexuality. Instead, it should be identified and described in schools, etc. as a harmless perversion--legal to be practiced by anyone choosing to do so, but absolutely NOT portrayed as equal, morally equivalent, or whatever.

I've met homosexuals who were apolitical and normal in many other ways. They just wanted to be left alone. They were what they were; They did what they did; They didn't pretend it was morally right; And they definitely didn't try to promote their chosen lifestyle as equal.

I've also met straight liberals--in person and in forums--for whom that sort of way of dealing with homosexuality wasn't good enough. They wanted to promote it, teach it as equal, etc. I can't help thinking these liberals did NOT have the desires or welfare of the homosexuals as their priority so much as a different agenda--an anti-Christian/anti-American agenda--hoping to destroy the heritage, culture, and moral fiber of the country.

The other issue of this thread, as Sheepshead described, is judicial activism--where leftist judges who can only be described as elitist, override the democratically stated will of the people. As somebody described, we have a Constitutional democracy, not a pure one. However, that concept implies INTERPRETING the letter of the Constitution--not manufacturing phantom rights that aren't there and which follow a rotten agenda of tearing down everything that has generally been accepted as normal and American dating back to the founding fathers.

Things like protecting due process of law, protecting freedom of speech (NOT perversions masquerading as speech), protecting freedom of religion (including the MAJORITY RELIGION--not merely two bit crap religions), etc., in these cases, expansive court decisions are fine. However, fantasizing a right to kill fetuses, to have homosexual marriages legitimatized by law, expanding rights reserved for citizens to non-citizen terrorist enemies, etc., those type of things do NOT fall within the realm of protecting Constitutional rights and are NOT legitimate judicial acts.

So if everything goes according to form here, the leftists will whine and rant about right wing this/right wing that, and they won't even have the balls to defend the leftist crap they and their favorite politicians stand for. I challenge you sick fools of the left--you know who you are--to state WHY you think allowing homosexuality, but labeling it as wrong, condemning the promotion of it in schools, etc. as equal, condemning the overriding the will of the electoral majority in favor of phantom "rights", etc.--why you think these are not very moderate and rational positions. Show some courage for once, Hoosier, Zool, Tyrone, Ziggy, Joe, any other leftists for whom the shoe fits, instead of running and hiding and diverting the discussion like you usually do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Homosexuality ... should NOT be legitimatized and subsidized by the government as an equal alternative to normal heterosexuality. Instead, it should be identified and described in schools, etc. as a harmless perversion--legal to be practiced by anyone choosing to do so, but absolutely NOT portrayed as equal, morally equivalent, or whatever.

The number of people who think this way declines every year. Younger people are generally ready to accept gay couples as equivalent to hetero couples.

Sheepshead said he doesn't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, but he's clearly upset at the ruling in CA allowing gays to marry. I imagine Sheepshead voted for that WI amendment prohibiting civil unions for gays.

Tex & Sheepshead have congratulated themselves for their tolerance of gay sex, but the reality is they tolerate homosexuals only if they are stigmatized and denied the legal rights of other couples.

Bigotry doesn't change in a few years. It takes a couple generations.

[texaspackerbacker]

Harlan, I congratulate you for a fair and accurate summary of what I just said.

The question is, WHY has the trend been toward the more sick and rotten (IMO) point of view. I would suggest it is because of a successful effort of propaganda and demagoguery in that direction by the leftist media, education establishment, and entertainment community.

You are using circular logic if you are implying that the sick trend you describe somehow makes that view right or valid.

I left you out, Harlan, when I called out the leftists as the disgusting cowards they are--lacking the balls to defend their sick liberal positions. I don't suppose YOU, however, would care to discuss the issue on its merits, rather than just describing the rotten trend toward wrongheadedness.

[Tarlam!]

I have an absolute soul felt problem with Gay men being able to adopt children. I can't stop Lesbians from artificial insemination, though, I wish i could.

I have a real problem with homophobic couples raising kids. And yes, I know how loving they are. And how so many "normal" marriages are fucked.

I still cannot tolerate same sex couples raising our future.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Homosexuals have the right to marry.
If they have no interest in the opposite sex there is no deprivation of that right.

If one looks at California Law until 2000 most everyone assumed what the word meant. The 2000 election had a ballot measure that defined marriage between a man and a woman.

California has all the domestic partnership laws that don't deprive anyone of inheritence, medical visitation, etc.

Now there will be a Constitutional Amendment to be voted on. It will add to the turnout will be increased for those in favor of the Constitutional Amendment.

[falco]

Bigotry doesn't change in a few years. It takes a couple generations.

exactly - thank god that posters on packerrats in 2060 won't have to deal with narrow minded bullshit

[falco]

I have an absolute soul felt problem with Gay men being able to adopt children. I can't stop Lesbians from artificial insemination, though, I wish i could.

I have a real problem with homophobic couples raising kids. And yes, I know how loving they are. And how so many "normal" marriages are fucked.

I still cannot tolerate same sex couples raising our future.

i have the same problem Tarlam.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Bigotry doesn't change in a few years. It takes a couple generations.

exactly - thank god that posters on packerrats in 2060 won't have to deal with narrow minded bullshit

:lol: Actually I think we are getting close to gay acceptance, maybe half a generation away. People over 40, and especially people over 50, were raised in an entirely different environment. I have a friend who is a highschool teacher, and she claims that generation is bored by the gay issue, they GENUINELY don't care if somebody is gay, as opposed to certain old farts who claim to tolerate gays but actually want to stigmatize and punish their behavior.

[MJZiggy]

Homosexuals have the right to marry.
If they have no interest in the opposite sex there is no deprivation of that right.

If one looks at California Law until 2000 most everyone assumed what the word meant. The 2000 election had a ballot measure that defined marriage between a man and a woman.

California has all the domestic partnership laws that don't deprive anyone of inheritence, medical visitation, etc.

Now there will be a Constitutional Amendment to be voted on. It will add to the turnout will be increased for those in favor of the Constitutional Amendment.

Just a question, but do they have the right to marry whomever they happen to love? Do you for that matter?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Homosexuals have the right to marry.
If they have no interest in the opposite sex there is no deprivation of that right.

Homosexuality is a trait people are born with. What you are saying makes no more sense than claiming in 1960 that blacks should achieve equality by getting melanoma treatments.

I know you and Tex believe that attraction to same sex is simply a (wrong) choice. (Why anybody would make such a burdensome choice defies logic.) Your ideas reflect complete ingnorance and bigotry. If you knew some gay people well, or were open to hearing scientific research, there's a chance you might change your views. Its more likely that death will come before such an attitude change with some of your generation.


California has all the domestic partnership laws that don't deprive anyone of inheritence, medical visitation, etc.

Do you support this provision? The WI Constitutional Amendment prohibits any accomodation for gays. Did you vote for it?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have an absolute soul felt problem with Gay men being able to adopt children. I can't stop Lesbians from artificial insemination, though, I wish i could.

I have a real problem with homophobic couples raising kids. And yes, I know how loving they are. And how so many "normal" marriages are fucked.

I still cannot tolerate same sex couples raising our future.

i have the same problem Tarlam.

I agree it is best to have both a male and a female as parents. But same sex couples can do a good job raising kids. The most important thing is the commitment of the parents.

[MJZiggy]

I've heard that same sex couples are more likely to be willing to take the kids that have been lost in the system. In that instance, I'd like to think that a loving, permanent home is better than never knowing where you'll land next.

[MadtownPacker]

I dont care if Harlan wants to blow college boys for food but I just hate how queers always want to make a big display of their faggotness. They go directly out of their way to kiss and have their hands all over each other in public. You dont see straight couples announcing "oh yeah, we fuck each other" do you??

They want to be treated equal they should act equal. I think it is inappropriate for a hetero couple to overly display affection in public too so dont think this is only about pole-smokers. Funny thing is that lesbians couples are actually usually very dignified and it is clear they carry themselves in a family type of way. It is always the gay males that are the problem. It is not right for little kids to have to see that shit and be confused.

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They go directly out of their way to kiss and have their hands all over each other in public. You dont see straight couples announcing "oh yeah, we fuck each other" do you??

That's funny, I NEVER see either gay or straight couples pawing each other. I think WI must be more reserved than CA. Either that or I got to get out more. OR maybe things are just a little sloppy down in your barrio.

[Joemailman]

Mad may have a point:

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/images/avatars/1814154062481f8284709e6.jpg

[MadtownPacker]

They go directly out of their way to kiss and have their hands all over each other in public. You dont see straight couples announcing "oh yeah, we fuck each other" do you??

That's funny, I NEVER see either gay or straight couples pawing each other. I think WI must be more reserved than CA. Either that or I got to get out more. OR maybe things are just a little sloppy down in your barrio.It is because in WI they are scared of whack jobs like Red or Lil Whiskey mowing them down with a .357. Or maybe they just fear a big ole bullqueer such as yourselves.

[GoPackGo]

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?

[Bretsky]

They go directly out of their way to kiss and have their hands all over each other in public. You dont see straight couples announcing "oh yeah, we fuck each other" do you??

That's funny, I NEVER see either gay or straight couples pawing each other. I think WI must be more reserved than CA. .


Were you around when Ellas Deli was on State Street and this went on ? After they were asked to stop and then leave..............a big protest went on

[Joemailman]

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?

I say as long as the kids they're adopting aren't Packer fans, why not?

[Tarlam!]

I have a real problem with homophobic couples raising kids. And yes, I know how loving they are. And how so many "normal" marriages are fucked.

I still cannot tolerate same sex couples raising our future.

i have the same problem Tarlam.

Shit. Got me. But you knew what I meant!!

I have a problem with same sex couples raising our future. And no, I am not homophobic. And it was a freudian slip maybe - what do i know!

[MadtownPacker]

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?Since they are able to love each other let them have someone kind of legal bond. But they are not able to make a child so no, they dont get that right. A hetero couple who for medical reasons cant concieve has an excuse, fags dont.

You are wanting to adopt?

[Iron Mike]

No surprise. San Francisco was the birth place of the countercultural movement.

Back in the 60's the CIA used to pose as hippies to distribute LSD to many a fine flower folks .It was part of the cia's mind altering experiment called Project UKULTRA. LSD succeeded in preventing the existence of a peaceful utopia. However, Project MKULTRA was a complete disaster. All it did was gave birth to a generation of long-haired, tree hugging heroine users: the fine flower folks of the 70's.

Back to the topic of this thread.

Jesus Christ.....get your facts straight before you post.

MK-ULTRA was a mind control and interrogation research program that ran from the 1950s into the 1970s. The ultimate objective was a response to efforts that the Soviets and Asians had subjected US POWs from the Korean war on. Here's an example:

http://www.usspueblo.org/v2f/admin/welcomeframe.html

In other words, if they're going to play this game, we will also. And we'll do a better job of it. It involved a LOT more than giving acid to hippies in The Haight. :roll:

[GoPackGo]

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?Since they are able to love each other let them have someone kind of legal bond. But they are not able to make a child so no, they dont get that right. A hetero couple who for medical reasons cant concieve has an excuse, fags dont.

You are wanting to adopt?

I'm 1 for 1 in baby making attempts(batting .1000!!)
I thought it was funny you would agree to give gays the right to be legally married but not adopt kids. I think being married and having kids go hand in hand. If I didn't want to have kids I'd still be single and out on the prowl for a new hole to put my junk in every weekend.
The only reason to not allow gays to be married is the popular religions of the world say that homosexuality is wrong. I'm a christian but I realize that seperating religion and governemnt is very important.

http://www.threadspot.com/images/bustedtees/BT-dickinabox-gallery-1637.jpg

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Mike Ditka, open up you mind. I got my facts from a History Channel show on the glorious hippies.

The hippies of the 60's were seeking a peaceful and happy utopia. The CIA fucked that up by handing out free LSD.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Show some courage for once, Hoosier, Zool, Tyrone, Ziggy, Joe, any other leftists .


I left you out, Harlan, when I called out the leftists as the disgusting cowards they are

Thanks for not lumping me in with those wretched people, Tex.

[MJZiggy]

Bite me, Harlan.

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?Since they are able to love each other let them have someone kind of legal bond. But they are not able to make a child so no, they dont get that right. A hetero couple who for medical reasons cant concieve has an excuse, fags dont.

People come up with a lot of reasons why two adults shouldn't be able to get married or adopt. People used to say mixed race couples shouldn't get married or adopt because it puts their kids at a social disadvantage. There was much truth to this in the 1950's and 1960's, less relevance today.

Some people say marriage is for child raising, therefore gays shouldn't marry because they biologically can't reproduce. Well, what about hetero couples who can't reproduce? Mad says they "have an excuse, fags don't." I have no friggin idea what logic is running through his marijuana-addled head. That statement makes no sense, I would say the biological ability to reproduce has zero relevance to whether two people should be able to get married or adopt kids.

When it comes to marriage & kids, I think we should just be practical and leave the religious views out of it. There is no practical reason why any two unmarried adults shouldn't be able to marry, so no reason for the state to restrict people. As to adoption, there are some advantages to having both a male and female as role models, so gay parents should be at a disadvantage when seeking to adopt. But it is not the only consideration. There are MANY factors to consider.

[texaspackerbacker]

I dont care if Harlan wants to blow college boys for food but I just hate how queers always want to make a big display of their faggotness. They go directly out of their way to kiss and have their hands all over each other in public. You dont see straight couples announcing "oh yeah, we fuck each other" do you??

They want to be treated equal they should act equal. I think it is inappropriate for a hetero couple to overly display affection in public too so dont think this is only about pole-smokers. Funny thing is that lesbians couples are actually usually very dignified and it is clear they carry themselves in a family type of way. It is always the gay males that are the problem. It is not right for little kids to have to see that shit and be confused.

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

Sarcasm or not, Madtown, I certainly agree with a lot of what you say.

However, just to show my tolerance :), let me do a rare bit of defending gays. IMO, it is a fairly small percentage of them who are like you describe--showing off their faggotness, etc.

As with people in general, what I have observed is that the large majority of homosexuals are peaceable and fairly normal in most other ways--NOT wanting to draw attention to themselves, but just wanting to be left alone. It is that few who are as you describe in conjunction with a whole lot of mostly straight left wingers who are trying to rock the boat and make over America into a society that not just allows gays to practice their chosen behavior, but which pretends and even preaches to kids in schools that homosexual behavior is normal. THAT is the abomination--not merely harmless misguided wretches minding their own business.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Show some courage for once, Hoosier, Zool, Tyrone, Ziggy, Joe, any other leftists for whom the shoe fits, instead of running and hiding and diverting the discussion like you usually do.

Damn! I didn't know Zool was a leftist. That bastard! He hides it well.

[Deputy Nutz]

I have a real problem with homophobic couples raising kids. And yes, I know how loving they are. And how so many "normal" marriages are fucked.

I still cannot tolerate same sex couples raising our future.

i have the same problem Tarlam.

Shit. Got me. But you knew what I meant!!

I have a problem with same sex couples raising our future. And no, I am not homophobic. And it was a freudian slip maybe - what do i know!

Who gives a shit, they are raising babies that were unwanted to begin with that most likely would grow up to be criminals. You narrow your view on how you expect them to raise a child. You narrow your view to the gay upbringing but yet you refuse to factor into your post the future that these two butt lovers saved the kid from.

[Tarlam!]

Who gives a shit, they are raising babies that were unwanted to begin with that most likely would grow up to be criminals. You narrow your view on how you expect them to raise a child. You narrow your view to the gay upbringing but yet you refuse to factor into your post the future that these two butt lovers saved the kid from.

Well, all those male/female couples that want to adopt and have to wait a trillion years probably give a shit, Nutz.

HH makes a pretty good case to exclude sexuality when it comes to adoption, but I think this is an issue that I can't be convinced on with arguments alone. I simply find it wrong that Gays and Lesbians be allowed to raise kids, because that's not how nature seems to have wanted it.

Next, HH or others could use that to argue against invitro fertilization, because nature clearly is selective. Or, nature can't be counted on if we add up all the crack babies. Or even better, arguing that single parentage is against nature, too, so we should take away all kids from divorced families. I've heard it all before. They are the classic counters. And I still disagree with it.

In this country, allowing same sex marriages was mainly accepted when it was realized by the vast majority that gays and lesbians had significant rights issues pertaining to illness and inheritance. And I can support that decision without blinking an eye. They should have a right to choose their partners and be equal in society. Except when it comes to child rearing, IMO.

[MadtownPacker]

Sarcasm or not, Madtown, I certainly agree with a lot of what you say.

However, just to show my tolerance :), let me do a rare bit of defending gays. IMO, it is a fairly small percentage of them who are like you describe--showing off their faggotness, etc.

As with people in general, what I have observed is that the large majority of homosexuals are peaceable and fairly normal in most other ways--NOT wanting to draw attention to themselves, but just wanting to be left alone. It is that few who are as you describe in conjunction with a whole lot of mostly straight left wingers who are trying to rock the boat and make over America into a society that not just allows gays to practice their chosen behavior, but which pretends and even preaches to kids in schools that homosexual behavior is normal. THAT is the abomination--not merely harmless misguided wretches minding their own business.Tex, there aint a drop of sarcasm in my statement. THat is the way I feel about this subject.

I guess you have a point about a few bad apples ruining the bunch. BUt like I said, it is always the male homos not the lesbians who make a show of shit. I imagine Harlan is one of these type of gays.

[MJZiggy]

Who gives a shit, they are raising babies that were unwanted to begin with that most likely would grow up to be criminals. You narrow your view on how you expect them to raise a child. You narrow your view to the gay upbringing but yet you refuse to factor into your post the future that these two butt lovers saved the kid from.

Well, all those male/female couples that want to adopt and have to wait a trillion years probably give a shit, Nutz.

HH makes a pretty good case to exclude sexuality when it comes to adoption, but I think this is an issue that I can't be convinced on with arguments alone. I simply find it wrong that Gays and Lesbians be allowed to raise kids, because that's not how nature seems to have wanted it.



Tar, I was one of those male/female couples. It takes a million years if you wanna raise a newborn. A decent chunk of time and money if you wanna raise an infant. But the kids that are older or unhealthy don't really have anyone clamoring to take them. If they get taken out of their homes because of abuse or whatever, they flounder in the system--oftentimes until they reach maturity.

And from what I've seen, the more demonstrative men are the young ones who are angry and trying to demand acceptance either that or they're just young and hormonal. Once they are older, they settle in, just like you see hetero kids who can't keep their hands off each other.

[Tarlam!]

So, Ziggy, what you are saying is that we should give our societies "trash kids" to Gays and Lesbians, cause we "straight" people don't want 'em?

I can't begin to believe that that is correct, but it seems to play on Nutz' comment, also. How sick are we?

[Zool]

Show some courage for once, Hoosier, Zool, Tyrone, Ziggy, Joe, any other leftists for whom the shoe fits, instead of running and hiding and diverting the discussion like you usually do.

Damn! I didn't know Zool was a leftist. That bastard! He hides it well.

Its when he started in on this that I knew this whole thing was an act.

[Zool]

I say give them their fucking rights but when they start crossing the line in public, treat them "equal" and cite their ass for being naked or exposing there sick selves or whatever sick shit they are doing.

And as for kids, fuck no do they deserve the right to adopt.

So you are saying give them their marriage rights except for adoption?

I would agree with this sentiment. Kids have a hard enough time trying to feel like they fit in when they go to school. They dont really need to explain that they have 2 dads or 2 moms. They will hide that fact for as long as possible to avoid ridicule.

Also, if you cant make a baby, you cant have a baby. I'm not a big fan of artificial insemination either. If you're not fertile, that might be nature trying to tell you something.

[Harlan Huckleby]

HH makes a pretty good case to exclude sexuality when it comes to adoption, but I think this is an issue that I can't be convinced on with arguments alone. I simply find it wrong that Gays and Lesbians be allowed to raise kids, because that's not how nature seems to have wanted it.

Actually, I didn't say sexuality should be completely excluded when considering adoption. (my posts are long and boring, so the details get lost.) I agree halfway with you, it is more desirable to have both a male and female role model raisng kids. But I think this is just one consideration in deciding whether two people can be good parents.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I would agree with this sentiment. Kids have a hard enough time trying to feel like they fit in when they go to school. They dont really need to explain that they have 2 dads or 2 moms. They will hide that fact for as long as possible to avoid ridicule.

This is EXACTLY the argument used in the 1950's and 60's to say that mixed race couples should not adopt, or even get married. And most people agreed with the argument. (Before this time it was considered too bizarre to even discuss.)

And there is truth to what was said before, and what you say now. But times change, people become more accepting.

Hell, I grew up in a household that had two daddies. My dad was usually a cheery guy, but turned into a raging bastard when he couldn't find his Time magazine, or when the grass didn't cut on the day he said it should.

[Scott Campbell]

My dad was usually a cheery guy, but turned into a raging bastard when he couldn't find his Time magazine, or when the grass didn't cut on the day he said it should.


Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with his little shithead son.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My dad was usually a cheery guy, but turned into a raging bastard when he couldn't find his Time magazine, or when the grass didn't cut on the day he said it should.


Yeah, I'm sure it had nothing to do with his little shithead son.


you leave my brother out of this. this is family business, buzz off.

[GoPackGo]

Kids have a hard enough time trying to feel like they fit in when they go to school. They dont really need to explain that they have 2 dads or 2 moms. They will hide that fact for as long as possible to avoid ridicule.

Also, if you cant make a baby, you cant have a baby. I'm not a big fan of artificial insemination either. If you're not fertile, that might be nature trying to tell you something.

I don't think going to school and explaining that their parents weren't around and that they live in a state run group home would be any easier

[Zool]

Kids have a hard enough time trying to feel like they fit in when they go to school. They dont really need to explain that they have 2 dads or 2 moms. They will hide that fact for as long as possible to avoid ridicule.

Also, if you cant make a baby, you cant have a baby. I'm not a big fan of artificial insemination either. If you're not fertile, that might be nature trying to tell you something.

I don't think going to school and explaining that their parents weren't around and that they live in a state run group home would be any easier

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.

[Deputy Nutz]

Who gives a shit, they are raising babies that were unwanted to begin with that most likely would grow up to be criminals. You narrow your view on how you expect them to raise a child. You narrow your view to the gay upbringing but yet you refuse to factor into your post the future that these two butt lovers saved the kid from.

Well, all those male/female couples that want to adopt and have to wait a trillion years probably give a shit, Nutz.

HH makes a pretty good case to exclude sexuality when it comes to adoption, but I think this is an issue that I can't be convinced on with arguments alone. I simply find it wrong that Gays and Lesbians be allowed to raise kids, because that's not how nature seems to have wanted it.

Next, HH or others could use that to argue against invitro fertilization, because nature clearly is selective. Or, nature can't be counted on if we add up all the crack babies. Or even better, arguing that single parentage is against nature, too, so we should take away all kids from divorced families. I've heard it all before. They are the classic counters. And I still disagree with it.

In this country, allowing same sex marriages was mainly accepted when it was realized by the vast majority that gays and lesbians had significant rights issues pertaining to illness and inheritance. And I can support that decision without blinking an eye. They should have a right to choose their partners and be equal in society. Except when it comes to child rearing, IMO.

Very rare that actual adoption from natural born babies in the United States go to gay couples. Usually they have to go to other countries orphanages and select from those.

Or they have to seek out private adoption from mothers that are pregnant. Trust me the United States is not slanted to help gay couples adopt children born in the United States.

It is a very low percentage for anyone to receive adoption from a US agency.

[GoPackGo]

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.
that would be ideal, think about the kids with no family though.
Gay parents have to be better than no parents right?

[Deputy Nutz]

So, Ziggy, what you are saying is that we should give our societies "trash kids" to Gays and Lesbians, cause we "straight" people don't want 'em?

I can't begin to believe that that is correct, but it seems to play on Nutz' comment, also. How sick are we?

We are a very sick society, but that has nothing to do with gays trying to adopt kids. We seem to view children as a renewable resource in this country and it is sick. The mistreatment of children in the United States is very sad and unfortunately not recognized by enough people.

[Zool]

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.
that would be ideal, think about the kids with no family though.
Gay parents have to be better than no parents right?

Not in my opinion. But maybe in the opinion of a kid without parents.

[Deputy Nutz]

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.
that would be ideal, think about the kids with no family though.
Gay parents have to be better than no parents right?

Usually, unless they have all those typical wild gay sex parties with bondage orgies.

[GoPackGo]

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.
that would be ideal, think about the kids with no family though.
Gay parents have to be better than no parents right?

Usually, unless they have all those typical wild gay sex parties with bondage orgies.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

how do you know whats typical? hmmmmmm?

[Deputy Nutz]

Agreed, but I still think tab A into slot B should be the only way to get a kid.
that would be ideal, think about the kids with no family though.
Gay parents have to be better than no parents right?

Usually, unless they have all those typical wild gay sex parties with bondage orgies.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

how do you know whats typical? hmmmmmm?

Just what I heard and fear about gay adoption :shock:

[Tarlam!]

We seem to view children as a renewable resource in this country and it is sick. The mistreatment of children in the United States is very sad and unfortunately not recognized by enough people.

Nutz, you're smoking crack or worse. How can you say this? The US of A is one of the few countries on Earth that actually protect kids!

[Deputy Nutz]

We seem to view children as a renewable resource in this country and it is sick. The mistreatment of children in the United States is very sad and unfortunately not recognized by enough people.

Nutz, you're smoking crack or worse. How can you say this? The US of A is one of the few countries on Earth that actually protect kids!

I could care less about children in other countries. Sure we protect kids from child labor, and we don't recruit them, or steal them to fight our wars like they do in Africa, but again I could care less what Sally Struthers has to say.

[Tarlam!]

We seem to view children as a renewable resource in this country and it is sick. The mistreatment of children in the United States is very sad and unfortunately not recognized by enough people.

Nutz, you're smoking crack or worse. How can you say this? The US of A is one of the few countries on Earth that actually protect kids!

I could care less about children in other countries. Sure we protect kids from child labor, and we don't recruit them, or steal them to fight our wars like they do in Africa, but again I could care less what Sally Struthers has to say.

Boy, you really made an argument for gay adoption. It's so strong, I think I'll have to concede!

[Deputy Nutz]

I could really care less about gay adoption, outside of the fact that you claim gays should have the right to be parents, even though a cracked out 16 year old girl that has no idea how to raise a child can have one anytime she wants, and then expects the government to pay for everthing. Then she realizes that the more children she has and the more fucked up they are the more finacial support she can get. Baby is born addicted to crack and has physical and mental disabilities and the mom gets a check from social security.

Same reason why I support abortion.

[GoPackGo]

I could really care less about gay adoption, outside of the fact that you claim gays should have the right to be parents, even though a cracked out 16 year old girl that has no idea how to raise a child can have one anytime she wants, and then expects the government to pay for everthing. Then she realizes that the more children she has and the more fucked up they are the more finacial support she can get. Baby is born addicted to crack and has physical and mental disabilities and the mom gets a check from social security.

Same reason why I support abortion.

,and I support ending the welfare programs

[texaspackerbacker]

So we heard what you guys think about kids of America and Europe and Africa, but what do you think of youth in Asia?

[Deputy Nutz]

So we heard what you guys think about kids of America and Europe and Africa, but what do you think of youth in Asia?

Well I need my Nike shoes so I am not going to comment.

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess my joke wasn't very good if I have to explain it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So we heard what you guys think about kids of America and Europe and Africa, but what do you think of youth in Asia?

Only old guys like yourself have to worry about it.

[Freak Out]

I could really care less about gay adoption, outside of the fact that you claim gays should have the right to be parents, even though a cracked out 16 year old girl that has no idea how to raise a child can have one anytime she wants, and then expects the government to pay for everthing. Then she realizes that the more children she has and the more fucked up they are the more finacial support she can get. Baby is born addicted to crack and has physical and mental disabilities and the mom gets a check from social security.

Same reason why I support abortion.

,and I support ending the welfare programs

So what do you do for the child? Is foster care welfare? State adoption?

[GoPackGo]

I would favor state temporary custody until the parent is able to provide
^^^^
I know making this change would not be simple, and it would be messy, but i think the welfare system isn't good for society
**********
edit 1 more time

The only way I agree that parents should be given money is if they are disabled and unable to work to support their kids. Then, a state run welfare program would be appropriate.
If the parent is physically and mentally healthy they should have to go to work and pay for day care just like everyone else or lose there children until they get it together.

[Oscar]

I would favor state temporary custody until the parent is able to provide
^^^^
I know making this change would not be simple, and it would be messy, but i think the welfare system isn't good for society
**********
edit 1 more time

The only way I agree that parents should be given money is if they are disabled and unable to work to support their kids. Then, a state run welfare program would be appropriate.
If the parent is physically and mentally healthy they should have to go to work and pay for day care just like everyone else or lose there children until they get it together.

[Oscar]

oops...lol I was gonna add that sometimes the cost of things like daycare add up..I have two toddlers and it costs me over 600.00 a month just for daycare..Thats cheap compared to what some pay in bigger cities. Then for me theres the failed first marriage..Thats another 600.00 a month in support. While I agree with what your saying I just wanted to point out that it isn't easy for some to get by. I'm making it OK. But I have my days..

[GoPackGo]

oops...lol I was gonna add that sometimes the cost of things like daycare add up..I have two toddlers and it costs me over 600.00 a month just for daycare..Thats cheap compared to what some pay in bigger cities. Then for me theres the failed first marriage..Thats another 600.00 a month in support. While I agree with what your saying I just wanted to point out that it isn't easy for some to get by. I'm making it OK. But I have my days..

It is tough....the difference is people like you work harder to make ends meet while others choose to give up and take free money from the federal government and its not fair