What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

  • Thread starter zappafan
  • Start date
  • #81
It's a shame the gay community can't walk on their own two legs and instead ride on the coat tails of the African Americans of the 1960's. These two scenarios are NOT the SAME!

The segregation of two different races into separate schools were not equal. Gay couples who decide to have a civil union and are given the same rights as a married couple is equal. The names are different because the relationships are different. If I said that I'm a gay male and am heterosexual does that make sense? Homosexual and heterosexual are TWO DIFFERENT things and in terms of sexuality are equal.

Marriage needs to be redefined. That's what we are saying. In order to become a tolerant nation, we have to completely stop treating gays differently. That means not having separate names for their relationships.

I think it's clear here what the actual issue is. In order for America to become a better place, you need to put your religious and personal reservations behind you. They're people, like you and I. You can choose whether or not to accept their union as godly, but you can't control their lives.
 
  • #82
Hey Outsiders, acceptance is already here. Homosexual couples are legal. There's nothing that anyone can do about it. So this is not about "acceptance".

Gays won't feel fully accepted until the whole United States calls a civil union between two females or males a "gay marriage".

Marriage laws have NOTHING to do with a "man and a woman" as they are exclusively about legal and financial responsibilities - which do not have a gender.

That's weird, I could have sworn I posted the legal definition of marriage which surprisingly does contain "man and a woman". The definition you describe must be from another country.

The entire purpose of marriage is to provide incentives to monogamy to provide stability to families, to provide legal protections in the interests of the children, to provide for the division of property after a death, and to facilitate fair taxation, among other things.

Notice there you mention families and children? Marriages produce families and children. Gay couples can't reproduce, and therefore have to adopt children that aren't there own.

Nothing in there is exclusive to "a man and a woman", and in fact I challenge you to indicate one aspect of the marriage laws in which the gender of the couple is relevant. I bet you can't.

I already have and it's in the first sentence of the legal definition of marriage. Let me ask you, are you (yourself) a product of a gay marriage because I do believe gender is relevant.

Furthermore, gay marriage is already with us. The following nations have legal gay marriage: Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands.

If I actually lived in any of those countries this somehow may be relevant...

In the USA, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Iowa.

2/50 or 4% of the United States agrees with "gay marriage", not bad...

The world has not fallen apart. Nothing bad has happened. The sky did not fall.

:crazy:

And yes, gay couples have children.

Adopt, for the time being.

I didn't say they conceived them, but they are the legal parents of kids. And as such, they need and deserve the same legal protections.

Capslock

That's fine and they should have the same legal protections, however calling it a "gay marriage" is not necessary.
 
  • #83
I'd argue that there be absolutely no difference in the name. Just "marriage". An umbrella term for the binding of 2 human beings.

Considering that they live their lives no differently from straight couples, it makes sense.

Now, your downplaying of adoption is offensive. You seem to think that adoption is less important than having children.
 
  • #84
so Outsiders.........................a strait couple, that are married that adopt kids cause they cant have any of their own due to medical reasons arent a family either?
 
  • #85
Marriage needs to be redefined.

Why?

That's what we are saying. In order to become a tolerant nation, we have to completely stop treating gays differently.

But from what I understand we are already a tolerant nation.

That means not having separate names for their relationships.

Do you give the same name to two different things? Why do we call cats, cats, lets call them all dogs.

I think it's clear here what the actual issue is. In order for America to become a better place, you need to put your religious and personal reservations behind you. They're people, like you and I. You can choose whether or not to accept their union as godly, but you can't control their lives.

I need to put my religious and personal reservations behind me? Excuse me but I don't even know you and you don't even know me so don't pretend like you do. I have not brought up God in any of this debate because not everyone here believes in God as I do. Marriage, since the first one that ever existed on this Earth was composed of a man and a woman. That was the definition of a marriage then and is the same now. Gays aren't interested in equality under the law as proven by this thread. The whole "gay marriage movement" is all about forcing social acceptance using law, it isn't good enough to have the same rights they want people to buy the lie that their "gay marriage" is the same as a heterosexual marriage. It isn't the same and never will be the same, they are two different things and that is the simple reality check.
 
  • #86
I've said it before and I'll say it again: if a religious church wants to "marry" a gay couple, they should be allowed to do so. If a religious church does not want to "marry" a gay couple, then they don't have to. Just because a building and a congregation call themselves a church does not mean that they all subscribe to the same belief system, and therefore should not be regulated under the same "fundamental" principles. No government should be allowed to say that no church has neither the right nor the responsibility to marry whomever they please. Said another way, if a particular church interprets the bible differently and believes that gay couples should have the opportunity to be blessed together as a couple under god then there is no good reason why that church should not allow be allowed to perform such a "ceremony."

Weddings suck anyway, but that is neither here nor there.

so Outsiders.........................a strait couple, that are married that adopt kids cause they cant have any of their own due to medical reasons arent a family either?

Well, I suppose the husband and wife are a family; but the adopted kids are "in their custody."

I love how this topic is all over the place; but, for the time being, since it is somewhat related to politics it will remain open and active. But, knowing this crowd and these topics, it will be watched closely. Don't make me close another one, dang it!

xvart.
 
  • #87
let's make one thing clear

GAY LOVE IS STRAIGHT LOVE IS LOVE

It's the same feeling. It causes the same urge to be together. It deserves the same respect.
 
  • #88
MMMkay, I think the concern was that with differences is the perception of deficit. Differences do not equal deficit on their own but the fear is it leaves the door open for the perception, something that as human beings are somewhat wired to do. With acknowledged differences, it creates room for 2 entities, one will be, in the mind, “us” and the other will be “them”, and in-group out-group bias takes it from there, with a preference for us over them. One will be “better” for whatever reason. If it is or not is more of a matter of opinion and your beliefs than anything else. And that’s fine.
 
  • #89
MMMkay, I think the concern was that with differences is the perception of deficit. Differences do not equal deficit on their own but the fear is it leaves the door open for the perception, something that as human beings are somewhat wired to do. With acknowledged differences, it creates room for 2 entities, one will be, in the mind, “us” and the other will be “them”, and in-group out-group bias takes it from there, with a preference for us over them. One will be “better” for whatever reason. If it is or not is more of a matter of opinion and your beliefs than anything else. And that’s fine.

lol, wut?

:0o:
 
  • #90
Gay marriage = NOT a political issue. Especially with so much worse to worry about (our godawful economy for one)
How about we just call it marriage, and everyone can shut the hell up. I honestly could not care less what gay people want to do, unless it infriges on someone else's rights. If you don't like gay marriage, you can take a long walk off a short pier, since it has nothing to do with you at all. I don't like lots of things (anyone here that knows me can attest to that, lol), but honestly, if 99% of the world turned gay and got married, I wouldn't care, as long as there were some hot women for me to love on.

Now, my sister is gay, and if I accidentally have some illegitimate child (which is at least semi likely), she wants it. And guess what...she's gunna get it! She'd certianly love it more than I would (I realllllyyyyyyy don't like kids).
 
  • #91
I said

Creating two entities by their existence implies they are not equal, end even if the intent is for them to be equal they tend to not end up that way.

*ninja post!*

but phissionkorps is right. Lets move the topic along.

New topic: tissue paper. Ready, go.

Im running low, i think.
 
  • #92
so Outsiders.........................a strait couple, that are married that adopt kids cause they cant have any of their own due to medical reasons arent a family either?

Good question. Let me try to be clear about this. Women and men are DIFFERENT. I believe the ideal family should consist of one man and one woman as the head of the family. The two in sense make one complete unit to make children and to raise children. I believe it takes the two different sexes to raise a child, everything female about the mother and everything male about the father.

Now to answer you question, I believe a family defined as I have, that adopt children because they can't have their own are still a family. It's about having a mother and a father as the head of the household. I don't think it's appropriate for a child to be adopted into a gay couple's "family".

The obvious attack to this response is "married people get divorced", and yes this is true and my parents have been divorced since the age of 4. However I still have seen both parents and have been raised by both parents. I am a product of both parents, both genetically and the person I am today.

Rattler:

Do you believe gay couples can provide a healthy environment for developing children?
 
  • #93
"I said

Creating two entities by their existence implies they are not equal, end even if the intent is for them to be equal they tend to not end up that way.
"

*Ms. Swan voice* Well say what you mean, don't mean what you say.

Okay, seriously now...

Oh, I thought you were making a comment on politics in general. With the clarification: Hell yeah. Well said sir.
 
  • #94
I said

Creating two entities by their existence implies they are not equal, end even if the intent is for them to be equal they tend to not end up that way.

How can it not be equal if it's stated in the U.S. law that a civil union is to be recognized as having the same legal rights as a marriage? There is no option for inequality and if legal rights were denied, the denier would be in a courtroom faster than Speedy Gonzales.
 
  • #95
Do you believe gay couples can provide a healthy environment for developing children?

cant be any worse than some of the straight households ive seen............a normal man and woman marriage can f'up a kid pretty bad..............the idea of a marriage be tween two ppl of the same sex doesnt even raise my eyebrow........and i do believe they can take care of a kid atleast aswell as a f'ed up heterosexual couple, hell they can prolly do alot better than some. i live on an indian reservation and have seen some of the most screwed up family values out there..........if a gay couple love each other, want to get married and raise a kid as their own? what the hell why not.......a loving environment can only be a good one......chances are the kid who comes out of it will be alot more grounded than most
 
  • #96
How can it not be equal if it's stated in the U.S. law that a civil union is to be recognized as having the same legal rights as a marriage? There is no option for inequality and if legal rights were denied, the denier would be in a courtroom faster than Speedy Gonzales.
Who said anything about the law, i was talking about perception. And the law is inherently about perception, interpertation. Judicial history tells that tale. I dont have a problem not calling at marriage. do or dont, if you get the same legal rights why do you need it to be called marriage? perception, thats why. They want to be seen as married in they eyes of people and the law, and thats why many feel that 'civil union' is not good enough. Frankly i dont really give a hoot one way or the other because it does not affect me, but i understand where they are coming from.


____

I dont like those lotion tissue papers, they feel greasy...
 
  • #97
.....chances are the kid who comes out of it will be alot more grounded than most

That's true. One trend I do like about the US, is that every new generation is more tolerant than the previous.
 
  • #98
cant be any worse than some of the straight households ive seen............a normal man and woman marriage can f'up a kid pretty bad..............the idea of a marriage be tween two ppl of the same sex doesnt even raise my eyebrow........and i do believe they can take care of a kid atleast aswell as a f'ed up heterosexual couple, hell they can prolly do alot better than some. i live on an indian reservation and have seen some of the most screwed up family values out there..........if a gay couple love each other, want to get married and raise a kid as their own? what the hell why not.......a loving environment can only be a good one......chances are the kid who comes out of it will be alot more grounded than most

Sure there are bad marriages and divorces like I stated. I was just waiting for those to pop up as a reason why gay couples should raise a child. However the same issues will occur for gay couples, I don't understand why everyone thinks they are immune from them.

Rattler: Do you believe men are different from women or are we all the same?
 
  • #99
Who said anything about the law, i was talking about perception. And the law is inherently about perception, interpertation. Judicial history tells that tale. I dont have a problem not calling at marriage. do or dont, if you get the same legal rights why do you need it to be called marriage? perception, thats why. They want to be seen as married in they eyes of people and the law, and thats why many feel that 'civil union' is not good enough. Frankly i dont really give a hoot one way or the other because it does not affect me, but i understand where they are coming from.

We're not talking about perception here, we're talking about legal equality! Thanks for confirming my premise that it is about being accepted more than having the same rights.
 
  • #100
I believe the ideal family should consist of one man and one woman as the head of the family.

Two points here: first, you say "I believe." Second, you say "ideal family."

No family is ideal, in my opinion. That's what makes a family a family. Through thick and thin, a family are the people that love and support you, no matter what. It doesn't matter what the combination or makeup of the family unit is.

Rattler:

Do you believe gay couples can provide a healthy environment for developing children?

By no means am I rattler, but I will answer this question, too: I believe that each family unit has to be judged on it's own merit and you can't answer this question generally. I know there are poor husband/wife couples that do not provide healthy environments for developing children just like I am sure that there are husband/husband or wife/wife couples that do not provide healthy environments. In fact, if I were to wager a guess, there are probably many many more (on the order of magnitudes) husband/wife families that provide poor environments than gay couples; but, that is because there are many many more straight couples with children than gay couples. I would guess that if there were equal number of gay and straight couples, we would see about an equal number of good family environments and poor family environments between the two.

xvart.
 
Back
Top