Gay rights

[CutsieMarie89]

I respect them as an individual, means, outside of homosexuality context, I
interact with them normally. Means, if I am a dentist, then a homo or lesbian
patients comes to me to treat their teeth, I won't ever reject them just because
of their sexual lifestyle/preference. It's irrelevant. And so does in other non-
sexual related aspect of life.

I am just thinking for the adopted children. I feel pity if they have to say my
father is John and my mother is Steve. It's not normal. To be sister or brother
will allow them to say my brothers are John and Steve, case closed.

The thing that I really don't understand about people who are so advocatly against same sex marriages is how does it really effect your life at all? I've just noticed because of the supreme court case here where I live has found gay marriages to be constitutional and some people have gone crazy like their is masked murder on the loose. To be honest my life has not changed one iota since the case was made and I doubt their lives have either. Who exactly is harmed by this. I don't see how it hurts others it only helps others as far as I can tell, I could be wrong, but so far thats all that has happened here.
I can see how being raised by homosexual parents would influence a young child's view of the world, but I disagree with the idea that it would effect the type of people they are attracted to as adults.

A child would not say my father is John and my mother is Steve that doesn't make logical sense. They would say my fathers are John and Steve. People are taken aback at first, but what are they going to do. How is the child supposed to explain why his brothers hold hands and kiss?

 

[superstring01]

Imagine this scenario: a girl kid is adopted by a lesbian couple. She grows up in
the home where, say, Sally and Susanne kiss each other (sexually), and told her
that they are her parent instead of her sisters. Then this girl kid interact with
her neighbor, Lisa. Then before you realize, she loves Lisa. She learns to think
that it's OK to like Lisa, there is no different between Lisa or Pete.

Um. Okay. So, let's say that there was some science-fiction-esque scenario where having two gay parents makes a kid gay. So what? How are you hurt? How is the kid hurt? I have two straight parents, one who disowned me for about five years because I'm gay, how is that better? How would it be worse if the kid just ends up being gay?

I am just thinking for the adopted children. I feel pity if they have to say my
father is John and my mother is Steve. It's not normal. To be sister or brother
will allow them to say my brothers are John and Steve, case closed.

Do you know any adopted children? Do you know any who were adopted by gay people? Probably not to the second question. What's better for the kid, to remain in foster homes or in an orphanage or to be in a home with two people who OBVIOUSLY love the kid because they spent so much money, time and grief adopting the child? Tell you what, why don't you imagine which environment is healthier: musical-homes via the foster child system or a stable home environment where there are two parents. If your theory holds true that a "mother and a father" is essential, then, by that logic, we should also take kids away from their natural mother/father if they are single and don't have a counterpart in the picture. You know, it is for the good of the kid, after all!

The thing that I really don't understand about people who are so advocatly against same sex marriages is how does it really effect your life at all? ...To be honest my life has not changed one iota since the case was made and I doubt their lives have either. Who exactly is harmed by this. I don't see how it hurts others it only helps others as far as I can tell, I could be wrong, but so far thats all that has happened here.

Exactly. It's the excuse that prejudice people offer in order to stop gay people from adopting. It's how they justify their discrimination. "See, it's not that I'm prejudice, it's about the good of the child!" Look, people come by their prejudices long before they come by the excuses. It's only after their prejudice filter is attached do they screen all available information in the never ending search for reason to discriminate/hate someone else.

Children of KKK-member parents can't comprehend why they hate blacks at first, only that they hate them because that's what they were taught. It's only after they develop their minds do they start cherry-picking historical events and philosophical concepts in order to justify that hatred. And, right here, right now, we are witness to a person who has inherited that hatred and now sits around frantically searching for a justification for that hatred. And when one piece of information is disproven, another will be pulled out in order to justify such warped rationale. "I don't hate them, it's just that... reason [a]... reason ... etc."

A child would not say my father is John and my mother is Steve that doesn't make logical sense. They would say my fathers are John and Steve. People are taken aback at first, but what are they going to do. How is the child supposed to explain why his brothers hold hands and kiss?

Exactly.

~String

 

[codanblad]

Please don't twist my words. I did not compare public nudity to adopting children.
I said nowadays people overrated freedom. People want to be free in everything;
in marrying the same sex, in nudity as in porn, and whatever else come next.

i'm sorry, you only compare pornography to gay marriage. my mistake. i can see the correlation between vulgarity and two people vowing to always love each other.

There is a reason why the shape of d*** and V are different. There is a natural code
there. Everything has its place. Putting something not in its place will cause chaos.

dicks and vaginas work together due to natural selection. its how we reproduce, not how we love each other. therefore why should gays need a dick and vagina to love each other?

should a partner lose their genitals, are they incapable of love? i love my gf's personality, i simply enjoy the physical stuff. if a man cared for me and understood me the same way she does, i'd want to be with him. sex is a way of expressing your love, its not how you experience love.

also, does the natural code state that when a child's parents die, he must be left alone? that no one may nurture the child in a way which resembles that of a parent? i explore this idea further on.

I said if they will do secretly, please do, it's their own business (with God).
But to officially accept them in same sex marriage is not good for society.
I do not want to raise children where they think same sex marriage is an
acceptable alternative. If my children happen to be gay, it should be of
genetic accident, not society influence. The later is something you can prevent.

you're saying its their own business, but then you're still denying them the right to do it (i assume you'd be voting against gay marriage, gays adopting children etc..) you're interfering in what you've called their own business.

i believe you're either born gay, straight or bi. more people with gay parents don't "become" gay, they just embrace it. straight parents are more likely to keep their gay children in the closet, through all the brainwashing that 'gay is wrong, gay is evil, don't be gay or we'll abandon you'.

I respect them as an individual, means, outside of homosexuality context, I
interact with them normally. Means, if I am a dentist, then a homo or lesbian
patients comes to me to treat their teeth, I won't ever reject them just because
of their sexual lifestyle/preference. It's irrelevant. And so does in other non-
sexual related aspect of life.

that's tolerance, not respect. and you don't have enough respect for them to allow them to raise children. you realise that any gay man can pay a woman to bear his child, and then raise him with his gay partner? rather than this we're proposing adoption, so that children in need of a family are provided with one (one that has been interviewed and analysed). HOW IS THIS A BAD IDEA!!!

I am just thinking for the adopted children. I feel pity if they have to say my
father is John and my mother is Steve. It's not normal. To be sister or brother
will allow them to say my brothers are John and Steve, case closed.

i have more pity for orphans without a family, than people who have to say 'i have a loving family'. parents is just a name that implies their role, referring to these people as your parents would be a choice you make.

should i be embarrassed to say i have a stepmother, a mother and a father? because it might not be what people first assume? should that never have been allowed to happen? i love both my mother and stepmother dearly, and i call my stepmum 'mum'.

not everyone thinks gay parents are a bad thing anyway, when you speak of biological parents you're only talking about people who were biologically capable of producing you (they could have been junkies, nazis, terrorists, rapists etc.) when you talk about gay parents who adopted you, they're people who demonstrated the ability to be caring loving parents in a reliable financial situation.

people who grow up as good human beings, its because the people involved in raising them provided stability and love etc. gays are just as capable of this. there isn't a single thing a mum can do that a father cannot, or vice versa (unless you think a man can't discuss periods, or a woman can't discuss wanking. they are only unable to discuss it from personal experience. is a mother who doesn't menstruate less of a mother?)

 

[phlogistician]

Imagine this scenario: ... She learns to think
that it's ok to like Lisa, there is no different between Lisa or Pete.

It is OK, and if it makes her happy, there is no difference.

Why won't you let other people live their lives for themselves? Why do you feel the need to intervene, and control what others do? Have you got no life of your own that requires your attention?

 

[Sciencelovah]

It is OK, and if it makes her happy, there is no difference.

Why won't you let other people live their lives for themselves? Why do you feel the need to intervene, and control what others do? Have you got no life of your own that requires your attention?

This is a discussion forum, and I express my opinion in the right topic/thread.
I did not insist people to agree with my view, so don't insist me to agree with
yours. We are free to agree or disagree. Also, I have said all my arguments, and
read the responses, and I do not feel I have to add anything more because my
and other people points are already clear on that.

I am almost late to go to college. Bye

 

[Fungezoid]

homosexuals

In regards to homosexuals adpoting children, and lesbians in particular, they shouldn't be permitted to raise kids because they are mentally unstable. There is a higher rate of suicide and domestic violence among lesbians than in any other people group. This says a little something about the mental state of lesbians, and homosexuals in general. As for the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in California, the court effectively overturned the law of the land that was ratified buy 60% of the population; judicial tyranny, yes.

 

[Tiassa]

But is it real?

In regards to homosexuals adpoting children, and lesbians in particular, they shouldn't be permitted to raise kids because they are mentally unstable.

That's awesome. Thank you so much for the reminder that there are still people like you out there. Your voices had become so seldom that I was starting to wonder if maybe you'd gone extinct.

As for the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in California, the court effectively overturned the law of the land that was ratified buy 60% of the population; judicial tyranny, yes.

'Tis a strange accusation, that a court following the law should be considered tyrannical. As attorney and now author and Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald noted:

The ruling had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, but instead was based on the California State Constitution's guarantee of the "right to marry" and its guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.

Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution (emphasis in original):

[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.​

Only after exhaustively analyzing California judicial precedent on these constitutional questions -- over the course of 121 pages -- did the Court conclude that the state statute "limiting the designation of a marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples." The ruling, in effect, compels state and local officials to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally ....

.... No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents ....

.... There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage"? ....

.... The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.

(Greenwald)

The people do not have the right to pass whatever law they want. In the first place, if those laws violate state constitutions, they will be invalidated. Likewise, even if the will of the people is to amend the state constitution, that provision cannot violate the United States Constitution. It's kind of like firing your boss; maybe he deserves it, but you don't have the power to dismiss higher authority. The California ruling pertains only to the California State Constitution, and involves state judicial precedents at least as early as 1948.

So it's hard to see how a court ruling that abides by the state constitution according to definitions that are sixty years old at least counts as tyrannical.
_____________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "California's marriage ruling -- what it means and what it doesn't mean". Unclaimed Territory. May 15, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/

 

[Orleander]

...lesbians in particular, they shouldn't be permitted to raise kids because they are mentally unstable. There is a higher rate of suicide and domestic violence among lesbians than in any other people group. ....

LMFAO!!! You made that up!
Oh wait, I have one! The women that go into the military are all lesbians. The male soldiers that are dieing in Iraq are being killed by the mentally unstable lesbians. It's part of the whole lesbian agenda.
I know its true cuz I read it on the internet.

 

[Asguard]

Update

The bill passed the house without amendement (i belive) but when it reached the senate it was sent to the legal and constitutional standing commite. The cowards in the oposition didnt even TRY to seem like they were going to take a stand and pass it by setting a date to report by. The bill was just sent into the etha to be delyed for as long as possable.

Its sad that australia has come to this

The goverment, oposed the referal (i think) and the greens and democrats tried to amend the referal so that the bill would be passed by the first of july to come into effect in the new finantial year. Unfortunatly the oposition oviously oposed this.

I doubt steve fielding will surport this bill which will end it right there and then because i highly doubt the oposition will ever grow the spine to surport it. We can only hope that they will have the courage not to vote at all (which will give labor and the greens enough members to will the division)

One positive note is that i happened to catch the green's speaker on the bill. It was quite a good speach especially the line that went "the greens surport the end of all discrimination based on sexual oriantation. This is why we surport same sex marrage because no one should be discriminated against based on there sexual". Now if only we could get the labor party to be as politically brave then the country would be a better place. Unfortunatly there is no point as long as the senate is the way it is because even if labor passed the bill through the house. The idotic family first sentor (sentor fielding) would never pass it. Its sad that the country is now held hostage to the infighting of the oposition and the one religious right sentor