What to do about the gays?

[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/article/214040/could_men_no_longer_be_needed_in_reproduction.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?

[3irty1]

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

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

[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?

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

Can you read?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Can I marry my dog? What about a cactus?

WHat part of "consenting adult" don't you understand. If your dog or cactus can consent...well, skip marriage and get on the carny circuit and make some dough.

[GrnBay007]

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.

When you say single parenthood is more common I'm curious how you are attributing that to welfare mothers rather than divorced couples.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information on public assistance. I do believe public assistance goes by household income, so a man living in the home earning a low wage does not mean the woman, or they, that you refer to must kick the man out so the woman and child is able to survive. Who is this THEY you refer to?

Then certain political parties promise them a little more public money to stay home,

I've seen far more evidence that points to certain political parties working to provide assistance to single mothers to help them get off welfare rather than to keep them on welfare.....assistance with tuition, childcare and even in desperate cases housing. Now I don't mean housing as in welfare. I mean housing as in structured programs that allow single women to get on their feet, whether it be through learning a trade or working, give them financial guidance and help them save for their own residence...all while receiving free childcare while working to NOT be on welfare and better themselves.

keep from building an actual family

What's your definition of an actual family?
A single mother does not have an actual family because there is no man in the house??? omg...that's almost hilarious.

Here's a thought....maybe those that are so outraged by the women on welfare should take a moment to think about all the men that fathered those babies and are paying NO child support. There would be less spending on welfare if they were helping to support their children.

I would certainly never encourage anyone to be satisfied with being on welfare, however I would also never look down my nose at someone that needed it to get on their feet. I don't see how a certain political party encourages it either.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

Not surprising. Mad has spread the word that I like it hard up the ass, as frequently and vigerously as possible. I will neither confirm nor deny these rumors.

I am strongly for gay people, but don't see either gay marriage or adoption as simple issues.