Just wanted everybodys' thoughts about this hotly morally contested arguement. I was wondering how many people out there actually think it is immoral.

Been there and done that.

I'll just say that if I had gay parents I would want out.

Why, Deadwood, you gonna catch something? I am a straight man, 38, parent of six and foster parent. But because of the fact that I've had full-blown AIDS for almost 17 years now, I've had the enviable opportunity to spend alot more time around gay men and women than I ever would have had I not contracted this disease.
My best friends are gay, always will be (my wife's too). I hate to generalize, ever, but for the most part, gay men are the most sensitive, loving, caregivng, nurturing, understanding and compassionate human beings on our earth.
And when it comes to parenting a child in these turbulent times, an intellegent, professional gay couple would certainly have my seal of approval. They probably know more about hardship, discrimination, and true courage that most straight parents do.

Badfish

You know, this is something that has been in the news but I just never gave it a lot of thought. Pity that I haven't. I guess the only thing about gays that would bother me would be the idea of being hit upon. Though in honesty, I have known a few self-proclaimed gays and they were never pushy.

I don't know that is the case with all because it has never been "my cup of tea". I am sorry for you Badfish, that you tote such a burden. It shouldn't be something that anyone should have to bear. My heart goes out to you.

Sounds strange, but what I, myself, perceived to be a burden for so many years, (the HIV) has changed my perspectives on life and love so profoundly, that I'm not sure I'd change it anymore. Thanks for your compassion, but I really have no complaints. One day at a time, and if I can help someone who's struggling, it was a good day, indeed.

badfish

I just don't like the thought of having gay parents. It kind of makes my stomach turn. Two guys having sex. Its just not natural for my tastes. But I've had a gay friend. Knew him before he was gay.

But aids played no part in my post, didn't even cross my mind.

Have you ever looked into a Cambodian cure for AIDS? There is a song in Cambodia with all of the fruits that you need to cure it. But if someone has AIDS I don't make the assumption that they are gay. One person that my friends dad knew(relative, friends son or something like that) had HIV. So my friends dad went over and cured him. But my friend won't give me the cure. He just says if you know the song then you know the cure.

But if you don't mind. What is it like having AIDS? Go into as little or more detail as you want if you don't mind of course?

...and illnesses as mindopeners.

To start with, of course gay people should be able to adopt children. Their sexuality should not matter. Bringing up children has nothing with sexual preferences to do. My mother is a lesbian, but not during my childhood though. She found that out after her menopause...:rolleyes:

Illness can be a great mindopener and a light to the soul. Because you realize more quickly than healthy people how preciuos life is. :)

Hmm, I would have to ask myself, If I were gone, would I want my children living in such an environment? Would I want gay parents serving as a model relationship for my children?

Deadwood,
Having had AIDS for so many years has had it's challenges, especially since I am not gay. I contracted the disease in a whorehouse somewhere in Thailand while stationed there as a U.S. Marine back in 1984-5. Very few even knew what AIDS was then, and I was a young, indestructable Marine who wasn't scared of anything. (foolish, I know).
But, needless to say, having the disease progress over the years has changed my life dramatically.
Physically, (and I'm not whining, I should have been dead a long time ago), I have lost most of the use of my right side from a complication called bilateral myalopathy, bowel and bladder control are tricky some days, mostly impotent, and my vision is failing from CMV infections. I must go into the hospital two or three times a year with pneumonia, which I have miraculously survived every time, but PCP will most likely be my downfall in the end. I've lost 80 pounds from the old days in the Corps and barely have the energy to walk around the house on a bad day. And I take about 60 pills a day plus pain medication (morphine) to keep myself functioning. The drugs are no cure, but they buy me time. Time for something better to come from the drug companies. All things considered, I'm doing pretty well. To have lived this long with AIDS, I'm just very thankful.
Emotionally, once you get over being pissed off that you got screwed in life (no pun intended), and you can stop feeling sorry for yourself while you wait to die, your perspectives all change, for the better, I think. I enjoy the time with my kids, my foster kids, so much more. I appreciate my marriage and my family more. It's made me realize that every day is a gift and don't waste it.
The non-profit organization Rita and I started has been the most rewarding "job" I've ever had, and there's no paycheck! We help families and children with AIDS here in south Florida. The need for our Foundation, The Red Ribbon Kids Foundation, became obvious to us when we realized that gay men had a huge variety of help and services avalable to them. Help with rent, free medical care, food pantries, support groups, etc. I'ts easier to have AIDS if you're gay. I don't say that in a bad way, good for them! But if you're a child or if you're working parents with a sick child, probably sick yourself as well, it can be a nightmare. But that's what we do, guide these terrified families through the process.
Off the subject, sorry. It has gotten me into the gay community more than you could imagine, and I must say that as a group and as individuals, gay men are some of the finest people I've ever known, and manyy of them would make better than average parents, despite their preferences in the bedroom.

I'm not gay, however I don't see a problem with this. The only problem is societies views on the gay community, it is this homophobia that races such controversies.

Godless, you've hit the nail on the head. Absolutely agree!

you wrote:
"I just don't like the thought of having gay parents. It kind of makes my stomach turn."

Hmmm indeed, perhaps it would be a healthier approach not to obsess about your parents sex life...most of us find that line of thought, less then comfortable.

"Two guys having sex."
Why is it that homophobic people always obsess about the act of sex...seems to me like the perversion is in the holier than thou's rather then the accused. Its so simple: if homosexual sex doesn't turn you on STOP THINKING ABOUT IT!!!!! unless ofcourse you can't and if thats the case I suggest you do some soul searching and come out of the closet already.


"Its just not natural for my tastes. But I've had a gay friend. Knew him before he was gay. "

Well aren't you the well rounded person a gay friend and all!!! (sarcasm FULLY intended)

LOL, before he was gay...and how did your friend catch his "gayness"??? what a ridiculous way to think!!!!! not surprised though deadwood, at least your consistent with christianinty.

badfish, I was going to PM you, but since you don't seem to have the message option I want to ask if you could just ignore rambler any comments rambler makes regarding my Christianity.

I ignore him so he aint getting no replies back from me.

I'm not homophobic. Just wouldn't like seeing to gay parents kissing and hugging each other in the morning and stuff. Just something I wouldn't like to have to be around and people should accept that just as I accept people who are gay.

But certainly, gay people are friendly, caring, gentle kind just like a lot of people are in this world. I don't like people who bash up people who are gay just because they are gay either.

I don't even know why I have to defend myself here? If you're gay you're gay and thats it basically. You're still human and what Rambler said in that last post is totally opposite of who I am and what I stand for.

I do think it is great what you are doing for people with HIV and their families. Keep it up badfish, keep it up mate you have my approval! though my approval probably means nothing, but you still have my approval for what you are doing. Perhaps in the long run, it is more satisfying than being in the Marine Corp?

Just give it up, Rambler, I don't need you on my back all of the time to tell me what I think. I am my own person with my own thoughts.

I apologise again badfish, for Ramblers behaviour and ask that you ignore him and whatever words he puts into my mouth.

Keep up the good work Badfish, keep up the good work!

Piffi--
I was wondering how many people out there actually think it is immoral.Not I, said the duck. Among Americans, bad parenting is so pandemic that it's the official method. To the other, I have reservations about adoption in general; having been raised white and beaten for the Asian half of my heritage, it kind of pisses me off that one could hold against me an ethnicity which is mine by birth but which is wholly irrelevant to my life. This, however, speaks to the nature of the society and culture in which I was actually raised. Perhaps among less judgemental people than west-coast, post-Christian WASPs adoption is actually a good idea. I would never restrict adoption to cultural homogony, but one thing I must laugh at is that my parents thought they were fostering my ethnicity by trying to sign me up for karate classes when I was 12. Anyone remember Diff'rent Strokes? Strangely, the issues presented in that show are more relevant to me than the qualification of someone's parenthood according to their sexual orientation.

Deadwood--
I'll just say that if I had gay parents I would want out.Fair enough. As long as we recognize that this is from your current perspective. I submit that you would feel differently had you grown up knowing your folks were gay. (And don't worry about apologizing for Rambler ... he's entitled to be sick and tired of hearing Christianity disapprove of homosexuality. I don't bother apologizing for Christianity, and that's a burden I wouldn't want. But in the end, your policy of ignoring him is the best thing if that's how you feel. A fair question, however, would be how you felt if one of your parents decided to tell you they were gay, but we can leave that for another debate on another day.)

Bowser--
Would I want gay parents serving as a model relationship for my children?I would assume that this is part of the reason you're not gay. ;)

Badfish--

What can I possibly say? Please know you have my hopes, and all of our thanks for the work you continue to do to help others in their common trial.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Hey Deadwood, sorry about the war I started, didn't mean to set you up for an attack. I'm sure you're not a true "homophobic", it's just such a sensitive issue, you really have to choose your words carefully these days. By the same token, don't be so hard on Rambler, he's got a good point. You're probably not nearly as predjudiced as you may have come off. And thanks for the encouragement!

Is the above post a reply when your not making a reply???

First I can make my own apologies, so badfish please ignore Deadwoods comments, I make NO apologies for what I said.

Mind telling me where exactly I told you how to think??? You know this is a PUBLIC forum so if you don't want comments on your what you write DON'T write it...sheesh!!!! how hard is it to understand the obvious???

Enough already. Let's don't be ugly.

It's a shame that parenting doesn't come with a how-to manual. Maybe there would be more responcible people in the world today.

As long as we recognize that this is from your current perspective. I submit that you would feel differently had you grown up knowing your folks were gay.

You are right to submit that I would feel differently if it were my own parents. Definitely. Our childhood does have a huge impact on how we live our lives. But I don't want people thinking that I grew up in some souped up Christian doctrine camp. Because thats simply not true. I went to chruch pretty much on and off and read my bible a bit as well. It is in fact my choice to believe, not my parents. But my parents would accept me either way. Just as I would accept them either way, Christian or non-Christian. Gay or not gay, I would certainly accept them.

But since this is about gay-adoption, it would be a lie for me to say that I would want or wouldn't mind going to gay parents. I am just being honest on the sci-forums. If I could choose between either gay or straight parents I would choose straight parents any day. Another factor that comes into why is because I can not stand that gay accent. Its ok for a little while but after that it gets really irratating.


I might be Christian, but that doesn't mean I am a gay hating maniac or anything of the like. If there was a gay person on the street I would treat them the same as everyone else. Not better, not worse. Jesus said Love you neighbour, and that is what I intend on doing. I don't see myself as homophobic and certainly am not a 'true' homophobic. But if you can show me why I am then I would definitely see this as something worth fixing.

I got a box of tools but I don't think the wrenches will fit.

After rereading this I thought that maybe I should add a little. I don't think that anything I am reading here needs fixing. What's one's cup of tea isn't anothers.

you wrote:
"I don't see myself as homophobic and certainly am not a 'true' homophobic. But if you can show me why I am then I would definitely see this as something worth fixing"


now let me show you (another gem from you):
"Another factor that comes into why is because I can not stand that gay accent. Its ok for a little while but after that it gets really irratating"

and the comment further up about knowing your gay friend before he was gay.

Statements like this without clarification:
"If I could choose between either gay or straight parents I would choose straight parents any day"

or can I assume that the reason is the accent???


And:
"Just as I would accept them either way, Christian or non-Christian. Gay or not gay, I would certainly accept them. "

Contradicts the "if I had a choice..." statement

From your statements in this thread it is clear that you are not accepting of gay people and your poor attempt to say otherwise seems an obvious way to dogde the consequences of being ignorant. Yeah yeah now your going to tell me that I shouldn't be telling you what you are thinking...however I put it to you that your posts speak for themselves.

BTW:
please define Homophobic, and TRUE homophobic, whats the difference, I can only assume that one is fear due to ignorance and the other is pure hate...(even I don't believe you fail to understand that people can be different and their sex lives aren't YOUR business out of pure hate...so that only leaves ignorance)

I'm certainly not gay but let me say this.

The rest of society is screwed up. This also applies to the way we think about gay parents. There is nothing wrong with them.

Christianity and most of the ancient world.
They created morals based on primitive observations...
they remain true beacuse mostly what's human sticks with us. They were observers.
Now, Christians will tell you (or mean to tell you) that if you do not follow the sum total of their morals and tenents you cannot somehow have love...peace and goodwill are independent of silly human institutions..they are in our consciousness instincitivly.

All people transcend morals at birth and have them impressed upon them. Obviously. if a child is raised, from the start, as a Christian, they will have Christian morals and believe them to be right. Now if a child is raised an atheist, they will have atheist morals and believe them to be right.
(yes atheists have morals just wait until i explain them)
You say Gay Adoption is immoral because you were raised to believe that. A child raised by gay parents would not...most likely. Its your word against mine..yes, and your morals are only as equal as mine..
I say my morals are correct

I never said gay adoption was immoral?!??!? I said it was fine, did you even read my post??

No, No, No! I wasn't replying to your post. I was just making a point in general...not accusing you of blasphemy....sorry maybe i should be more srticulate in the future...haven't posted in a while.

It seems a lot of people don't get the whole point of the arguememnt, which is not petty parlor-trick arguements tht achieve nothing, but rather a basic fact of human nature. It's simply a matter of who feels they can speak for the world, and whether or not an institution such as a nation or a religious body can try to dictate human nature... if we are arguing about just gay adoption, we are not argguing enough.

Sorry, my fault piffi, i misinterprited.

This whole issue is moot. It looks like we are all pretty much in agreement. Sexual preference should not be a determining factor when judging a person's (or a couple's) ability to raise children. And I don't think Deadwood is so far to the right. He is well in touch with how he feels on this issue, and it doesn't sound so extreme. Probably how the majority feels, but won't admit.
Parenting should be about love and guidance, about intelligent choices with regard to right and wrong, about nurturung and discipline, honesty, integrity, and being a descent human being. It's not about what my parents do in the bedroom. It's like saying people with red hair shouldn't be parents. Remember back in the 70's when inter-racial couples were the big stink? It's time we grew up about this.

My opinion is:
If a gay person can take better care of a child than a straight person, what is the problem?
Although:
"I'm not gay, however I don't see a problem with this. The only problem is societies views on the gay community, it is this homophobia that races such controversies."
Someone stated this earlier. My problem with that is that last year when SF had its annual gay day parade i was there watching it. All i seen was gay people running around buck naked acting like freaks. Now why do gay people have to do that? I know plenty of gay people who are also great people, but when they go public to make a statement, they act like fools. And then wonder why people think their weird. I know, I know, their not all like that. But it makes a straight person think.
Thats all.

I think it would be perfectly okay if gay couple would adopt a children, itīs atleast better than single parenting, I believe.

Sometimes when I hear peoples opinions on how gays are bad, that they should be "healed" and forced to be heterosexual or when I saw a document about Ku-klux-klan, it just depresses me alot :( .

Seriously,
Is it really this big of a deal? Some people are homophibic....
I'm not sure where I stand.....
I have a really good friend who is gay, but since we are of the opposite sexs, it has never really bothered me.
But on the topic of gay marriges and adoptions......I have lived my whole life with straight parents (and I'm straight to....) and I just can't imagine it being any other way. I'm sure that if I had been raise in a family w/ same sex parents I wouldn't mind it a bit, but at this point in time, the thought kinda freaks me out. Not that I am necessarily (sp?) a "homophobic" it's just that I am not used to being around that many gay people, so I'm not sure how I'd react.
Rambler,
Please don't freak out at me like you did at Deadwood
:) milk and cookies,
JesusSaves

My opinion on gay people goes like this:

I do not understand how men can be attracted to men or women to women. I am aware things such as environmental ubringing and personal experiences that may have significant effects on an individual. Some say that it's in the genes, I'm not quite sure what to believe. But one thing that I know, men were created for women. It's logic. That's how things work. Opposites attract, no questions about it. The world is a cycle...

I would not personally discriminate against gay peope but I do believe that there's something not right about it.
Allowing, a child to adopted into a gay environment, will increase chances of psychological damage on the child.

If you wanna be gay, be gay, but don't involve an innocent life into it. Don't rob them of a chance grow in the 'right' kind of environment.

I do not understand how men can be attracted to men or women to women. I am aware things such as environmental ubringing and personal experiences that may have significant effects on an individual. Some say that it's in the genes, I'm not quite sure what to believe. But one thing that I know, men were created for women. It's logic. That's how things work. Opposites attract, no questions about it. The world is a cycle...First and foremost, let me state that when I take issues, I have none with this paragraph, and which is telling in its own way toward those issues I present.
I would not personally discriminate against gay peope but I do believe that there's something not right about it.While I get what you're after, it's worth noting that the separation of hetero and homosexual is, in its own right, a form of discrimination. This is not, however, the discrimination in question. (Separating vanilla and chocolate is discrimination at this level, so it's not an issue in and of itself.) Your next sentence, however, gives me some sense of tone and perspective on the prior.
Allowing, a child to adopted into a gay environment, will increase chances of psychological damage on the child. That's both definitive and assumptive.

* Definitive: "... will increase chances ..." Well, okay. I'll meet you halfway: while I charge that "will increase" is too definitive to be accurate, I also understand restricting the idea to the chance or odds of damage. At this level, however, I must remind that allowing a child to be adopted into a religious environment increases the chances of psychological damage and dysfunction. (Consider that in Christianity we have symptoms for which people applying a different form are institutionalized: on the cruel assessment, hallucinations, voices, imagined friends. To this end, recall an episode of The Simpsons when Marge is on trial (I think for shoplifting). While in court, Marge begins to pray, whereupon the judge asks, "Mrs Simpson, who are you talking to?"

The gist of which being that Marge was talking to an invisible person who is everywhere and sees everything. For the humorous point, the jury found this to be a condemning notion.

But not just to pick on Christianity: on the one hand, any coherent idea that demands the idea before the person runs this risk.

A difference worth noting, of course, is that ideas like Capitalism, Libertarianism, or any paradigm that becomes defining of a person, is a choice. I've watchd dogs have gay sex in the yard, and I've seen video of female apes performing something that looks suspiciously like cunnilinguis. So in the case of homosexuality, I don't accept the "choice to be gay" argument to be any more significant than whether you prefer chubby or twiggy, blonde or brunette, ad nauseam, in relation to your own tastes.

Hence, as I see it, any psychological damage comes comparatively in the face of social bigotry. The psychological damage of being young in a gay household comes from children of heterosexuals who tease, beat, and otherwise harass kids. The psychological damage comes from learning to obsess on the guilts assigned the differences 'twixt people. Is the evidence of harm if a child enters sexual activity and ends up with a partner of common gender? What if that child grows up into a hetero wife-beater? Is that more healthy?

It's just that given all the psychological harm we inherently do to children, I don't accept focus on a stress that arises from such artificial sources as bigotry. Would you rather your 13 year-old son kiss a boy or get dragged into the public spotlight after knocking up his schoolteacher? Which is more damaging?

* Assumptive: Please show the "harm" inherent to a gay-parented family. It seems you're assuming the harm.
If you wanna be gay, be gay, but don't involve an innocent life into it. In what context do you mean this? In the mundane sense that an innocent child is hurt by the presence of gay people, well, it's a crock. In the more severe sense of visiting sexuality upon a child ... if your daughter is ever raped by a man, will you be thankful to God that at least it was that, and not your son being taken by a man? Seems to me that having sex with a child of either gender is pretty stupid, and whether it's with a chld of your own or the opposite gender doesn't really change a whole lot.
Don't rob them of a chance grow in the 'right' kind of environment.What is the "right" environment, and why? I mean, what ... we could look at the proportion of child molestations and then laugh at the assertion (made by Phillip Ramsdell of the OCA in 1992) that 95% of child molestations are committed by gay men. Let's see ... if a male rapes a female, he must be homosexual? In that sense, then, how many children are being sexually corrupted by their heterosexual parents?

What is the "right" environment? Is the gender of the parents the only criterion?

And honestly? My opinion on gay people goes like this:

They're people. Get over it.

A little straightforward, but it's nine years since a ridiculous homophobia debate in Oregon served as someone's justification to firebomb a house and kill two people for the crime of being gay. I well understand that homophobia in society manifests itself in diverse degrees of separation, but I personally think that the social prejudices against homosexuality are one of the last bastions of the out-of-hand, post-Victorian nightmare of comparative morality. Homophobia employs the notion of morality as a weapon to hurt people.

Some maintain that homosexuality is a choice. So is it a choice to subscribe to a philosophy that promotes social division and hatred. Consider the decisions of, say, hundreds of thousands of Oregon Christians to revoke the civil rights of gays in the state: they're only being hypocrites for denying people self-determination.

I'm not going to tell you to reserve your judgements until you go out and have gay sex; that's kind of a ridiculous standard. But I would hope that you would be a little more tolerant, trusting, and accepting of people in practice than your rhetoric indicates.

Or could I instead ask that you demonstrate the consistency of psychological damage that results directly from the fact of homosexual parentage? I honestly think that when you enumerate it, you'll find two relevant trends: those damages that are common to all families in various manifestations, and those damages that come only from a person's choice to damage another. In other words, a gay-parented family will have many family stresses common with their heterosexual neighbors, as well as those family stresses that are induced by those who would choose to create stress, such as the homophobic bigots who would look a person in the eye and say that the latter individual does not deserve to be a member of society based on issues that the former will not discuss openly. (To this last point, let me invoke again Mr Ramsdell, who once published a list of sexual fetishes including coprophilia, watersports, rimming, and other practices in the 1992 voters' guide; only the homophobes were shocked by the list--they were the only ones who it had not occurred to that heterosexuals do these things too, and it was generally held to be a non-issue since what everyone was worried about was the gays.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I hate biggots, anywere from being a biggot about race, creed, or gender, and of course homosexuals. I've find that these people lack education, compassion, tolerance, reason, & logic.

They choose to hurt, redicule, discriminate & at the same time they feel a sence of rightiousness! as if they were the judges of how society should be!!.

Prety much how some these theists view religious choices, apparently we've got that too!!. Discrimination of creeds, beliefs, and down right hatred to non-believers (atheists)!

Is that about right?.
:confused:

Is that about right?I tend to think so, Godless, but I measure it in degrees. When the religious righteously hurt, ridicule, and discriminate, it is based on a stake than runs deeper than any other. These people have been brainwashed into accepting that deeper stake.

A blatant example is the assertion sometimes floated at Sciforums that the Communist persecution of religions was an atheist-sponsored atrocity. Well, let's take a look at it: Marxism asserts that religion is the opiate of the masses. Take everything bad claimed about opiates, and there you have the Marxist assessment: addictive, debilitating, and socially detrimental. Furthermore, one of these opiates (Christianity) makes claims of transcension; the Christian transcenscion of boundaries: empires, families, &c .... Add that to Christian transgressions of the laws--contraband, rabble-rousing, &c.--and an image starts resolving. Christianity appeared a political opposition, and one who by proxy of their commitment to God and salvation, hold their cause to be more valuable than their lives. How do you reason with someone whose sense of reason has transcended reasonability? Of course the Bolsheviks mowed down the churches: it doesn't make it right, but such considerations do shed some light on the evil atheist conspiracy to raise communism solely as an effort to destroy religions.

But that deeper stake: one can say, "Relent your position or I'll kill you." What happens when one is brainwashed to believe that better things await after death? The stake of someone's life is less significant; some will even thank the tyrant for speeding them along their journey to be with God. (This is important to consider whenever one mentions Roman persecution of Christians at the Colossea; Ignatius of Antioch, for instance, writes that he is pleased to be martyred, and that his tyrants are doing him a favor. Origen, I believe, had written once that it was his shame that he wasn't martyred by the lions.)

And as we examine this device throughout history, we need to scale it down a little. On the rhetorical level, beneath the historical lights, the seeming fanatacism that implies Christians will rush headlong into cruelty in order to facilitate their salvation, tames itself somewhat.

Due to the pervasive presence of post-Christian morals in American society, at least, we should note the manner in which the prejudices that hurt, ridicule, and discriminate are not inherently intentional. One can go their entire life believing in the benefit of an action without ever considering its ramifications for fear of "questioning God". Take the wife-beater who is also one of the flock: authoritarian conditioning tells him this is right; this is the way the proper people in his life behaved, ergo it must be proper. The prejudice against women need not be expressed as it was in 2 Timothy, but can simply exist without a person realizing it.

And that's the hard thing with religion: how many people can you point out a paradox of behavior to and see the light click on: "Oh, I hadn't realized ...." This doesn't happen with most Christians, at least--and I should start broadening this back out to theism in general. I'd rather limit myself to the redemptive religions, but very few religions omit an afterlife, so make of that what you will. The reason this doesn't seem to happen with most Christians is that their principles are given them by God: the stakes run beyond this life. They have no obligation to abandon a close principle for the betterment of humanity: what happens in this life is unimportant compared to Heaven.

And so when I approach the bigotries of the redemptive theist, I do so bearing in mind that it's not the prejudices themselves, but the choice to make them into bigotries by choosing an unflexible, divisive racketeer to award their allegiances.

I think the compassion, tolerance, reason & logic will come with education. Right now I'd assert that most theists don't understand the reasons for their faith, and that's what makes it so dangerous. Do what thou wilt is perfectly acceptable as long as one makes it sound like the Bible at least doesn't directly condemn it. (This is one of the reasons, I'd assert, that our Christian posters so rarely recognize the difference between the book and the people who believe it: nobody wants to admit how much liberty the faith takes with God's word.)

Hold the religion responsible, though, not the poor f--kers who never have a chance to escape it from the moment they rip their mothers open. If a theist openly refuses reason, I encourage you to keep in mind that this is expected. When that theist becomes hostile, at least then nobody can say you didn't try. And then you can feel better about laying into them.

In the long run, I think there's a functional difference, too: instead of despising someone for the label of Christianity, one can despise another for the choice to be despicable. For instance, if we look at my current fight with KalvinB: I can despise him for being a Christian, or I can despise his hypocritical abuse of people. In the case of the former, I'm picking an issue with an idea whose best measure is perhaps the fact that nobody who believes it understands it. In the case of the latter, there is at least the substantive issue of his conduct toward our posters, and the juxtaposition of that against his claim to be Christian. One need not despise the label, merely know what it implies, and not be surprised when that implication is realized.

Such theism is dangerous at least, and annoying to boot. But it must be overcome with something better, not merely replaced by the same old with a new label. Don't go after the theism per se, but rather the arrogance a theist assumes with their theism. On the one, you're striking agaisnt the actual problem; to the other, the residual has an effect on the theist.

Thanks much, sir ... you've given me an excellent platform from which to leap screaming into the quagmire. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

WOW! that was a long reply. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I'll be straightforward. The point is, as I've said before:
Men were created for women, vice versa. Together, they reproduce. Thus, the human population will continue to grow and humankind will continue. It's a cycle. It doesn't work otherwise. It's logic! It's not about being prejudice or discriminatory, it's about being realistic. To be a homosexual is against nature.

Human was created by God. The woman was taken out of the man's ribs. Thus, Eve was created for Adam. It was not STEVE created for Adam!

You may choose not to believe it BUT I do for very good reasons. IF you would like to know why, you are more than welcome to ask me. Look around and it's all out there. Think about it.

Someone stated this earlier. My problem with that is that last year when SF had its annual gay day parade are was there watching it. All I seen was gay people running around buck naked acting like freaks.
How would you act if you were gay and weer raised in a family with such "natural" and "righteous" ideas that they would do anything to "protect" they child from "becoming" homosexual?
I know some gay people (some are friends , some are not) and those who are gay in such an overt and somewhat annoying way come from such families as I described above.

Furthermore, I wonder: how many of you have thought about what it must be like to read this thread if you are homosexual yourself?
I do not have an opinion on gay people. I do not have an opinion on people between 35 and 40 years of age. I do not have an opinion on Arabs, Chinese, Europeans, vegetarians, etc.(well sometimes I play I disapprove of vegetarianism but everybody knows it's just playing).

What's the issue? You are born the way you are.
I am a man, blue-green eyes, dark curly hair, somewhat dyslexic (which explains my lousy typing), long, heterosexual, somewhat large hands and feet. Most of you differ from me on some, if not all, mentioned traits.

A question to the religious "I think it is just not right to be gay"-sayers:
Why would God create homosexuals if it were not right?

God never created homosexuals. NO where in the Bible does it say that "In the beginning god created gay people". Homosexuality like other things such as adultery, stealing, lying is a form of human sin. It's an act of human rebellion.

The world is not perfect and God created it that way so that us, mere humans would acknowledge his great power and control over us. However, in doing so he has created suffering and sin. We have tor realize just how sinful we are, so that we may acknowledge God's undying love and immense GRACE.

It's not an easy concept to understand and sometime it requires more than just facts of the world. To really understand, you need a little more than just logic. YOu need FAITH.

I have faith in that being completely the opposit of REAL Christianity.

To be a homosexual is against nature. If you say so. We'll just call those two dogs something else. We'll just call that primate sexual activity something else. Right? Right? Though I'm well sympathetic to the idea that I'm the only person in the world who has heard of homosexual behavior among animals, I know I'm not.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312192398/qid=1007657542/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_6_1/102-4010116-8737701

You know, I've seen it in nature. I've seen it in a classroom. And now I'm showing you a book review on the very same idea, so I know this isn't some hallucination of mine.

Which leads to a question: If it's not natural, how does it exist in nature?

Humans seek sexual gratification for reasons other than reproduction. If the nonviability of homosexual reproduction is the issue which makes it unnatural, and if we consider that issue in terms of adoption per the topic post, then we might say that people should be denied the right to raise children if the heterosexual couple has casual (nonreproductive) sex. When we put the waste of masturbation on that list, there are suddenly very few people who are "qualified" to raise children. Quite frankly, and based upon the sampling of my life's experiences, I don't think someone that repressed should be raising anything.
It was not STEVE created for Adam!I'm aware of that. It's also the dumbest thing I've ever heard, even the first time I heard it in Catholic school where such silliness was considered a Very Important Point. We might, then, point out that the reason for this may be because a male should never have sexual relations with an equal. A male should, apparently, only have sex with something established as inferior. You know, kind of a woman's payback for the rib? :rolleyes:
IF you would like to know why, you are more than welcome to ask me. Look around and it's all out there. Think about it.Since you've ventured your opinion and chosen to withhold this information, I'll bite. I'm curious why you didn't find that information important enough to give, anyway. It helps us understand why you hold the opinions you choose to voice.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

In having such passionate faith. Let me ask a question: do you know what the essence of Christianity is?:cool:

Hi Tiassa!

well the reason why I held back that piece of info, is just for the sake of retained suspense. ;)

Before you read it I warn you, what ever it is that you are about to read is spiritually based, and is my personal choice of spirituality.

Ok then, here it goes...

I believe in one God, and that is the God in the Bible. I believe in the God who created the world in 7 days. I believe in the God that has sent His son to save you and I from the penalties of our sin. I believe that we are all sinners, no one in this world is perfect without fault. No one in this world is worthy enough to enter the Kingdom of God; Heaven. Thus, we need the love and grace of this God to help us through.

Many of us, choose to ignore this issue but we have to realize that one day we will die. None of use are gonna live forever, which is something I know you know already. So, the issue of death has surely come across your mind at least twice in the course of your whole life.

I believe that this God will protect me always, I believe that this God is the key to my happinnes. I believe that this God loves me so much, that he even sacrifised his one and only son for me. Hece, in every aspect of my life, I always consider him. I try my best to obey His commands, because I want to please Him. He loves me, and in return I want to give back a little of what He has done for me. The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Do you know the story of Sodom and Gommorrah? It mentions in that story that homosexuality was a growing practise in Sodom and Gommorrah, God hated it, he was angered and eventually He destroyed the place.
This way, I know for sure that God disagrees with homosexuality. As a devoted Christian I live according to His way. Thus, explains my point of view on homosexuality.

Why do I believe in this one God with such passion?
BEcause I have felt his prsence in my life so evidently. In everything that I do, in everything that I am about to do, I feel that He is always there to guide me. I know He's there.

YOu might think that this all sounds very cliched, coz to me you sound like a very logic-based thinker, but there's more to life than life itself. Somewhere out there there's a greater being that has made all things possible. There is another level in life, than just the reality of the world. There is not just the physical but also the spiritual.

Ok then, that's it for now. I look fwd to your reply.


:D

Salient,
(this also applies to some others, they know) You cannot start to imagine how incredibly short-sighted I think your ideas are. I condemn these ideas of you. And I know to have Right on my side and I speak the truth.
The strange thing is, that I base this condemnation, if you will, on the same book as you base your ideas on.

I will pray to God asking for you to get some insight. For it is the hatred that you are proud to show off, that is the root of evil and the voice of the Satan on Earth.
The tricky thing is that this evil voice has disguised itself as the voice of God. Causing many a non-believer to think that the filth that comes out of your mouth is what Christianity is all about.
Go and feel ashamed for staining the Bible!

If you ever wonder why so many people are angry with God, Christ, and the Bible - You made them angry. It is your doing!

Well. ok I know this posts will only piss you off. and you are not going to change. But don't say I didn't warn you!

P.S. You may consider reading another translation of the Bible. Since yours obviously made an error in the Sodom and Gomorra episode.

Tipical, it never quite ends, the argument between two fellow believers, who's got it right?, It's been happening for thousands of years, and now in modern times it's still happening!.

Can't theist get their "crappy" religions together?.

Salient

Thank you very much for the reply. On the one hand, it appears you've given the issue much consideration. To the other, I hope to present a couple of perspectives that may have not have come up.
I believe in one God, and that is the God in the Bible. It is important to me to ask here why you believe in God. You seem to explore that idea in a couple of aspects, but by and large what I'm after is how you came to accept that faith.

The Bible speaks of homosexuality in two primary bodies: Hebrew laws pertaining to a good stretch spent wandering the desert, and the Pauline evangelization of which many of his assertions are definitively contemporary opinions of Christ, and not factual. In the case of homosexuality, for instance, Paul is instructing Christians in a subject ignored by Jesus. There is much debate, I suppose, to be had regarding whether or not that lack of attention is deliberate, and how it relates to Jesus' perspective on Hebrew Law. What of those parts of the Law he didn't address? In the modern, political fight, then, we see a reliance among Christian homophobes on Hebrew Law and Pauline evangelism while those inclined to the liberty of all people would point out a lack of any specific prohibition from Jesus' mouth and extrapolate on compassion.

How one comes to faith is vital in determining the relationship between faith and the living experience. For instance, a lifetime Christian, taught in the cradle, may indeed overlook perspectives due to the inherent prejudices of the religious system. A recent born-again might tend toward self-centered issues, the idea of "What Jesus has done for me." To the former, I always hope to offer alternative perspectives. To the latter, I do generally accuse a sense of greed in which one's salvation is the central motivator of faith. There are, of course, myriad degrees of faith, but the generalizations should at least justify why I ask.
The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. Do you know the story of Sodom and Gommorrah? It mentions in that story that homosexuality was a growing practise in Sodom and Gommorrah, God hated it, he was angered and eventually He destroyed the place.What I find interesting in this aspect about the tale is that one can throw one's own daughters out to be gang-raped, and at least it isn't as bad as homosexuality. Sodom and Gommorrah is an interesting tale, indeed.

Of Hebrew Law, though, consider those laws written around the period in the desert: Homosexuality, tattoos, bowel movements, self-mutilation in mourning--do we see any common trends here? All of these things lead to danger for a limited group of people functioning in those circumstances. Reproduction is key, sanitation is vital. Prohibitions against homosexuality relate to the spread of disease, just as prohibitions against casual heterosexual intercourse are designed. (Note: one need not be a genetecist to document that incestuous offspring often have birth defects; since style wasn't as important in the sense of How desperate do you look? it's fair to wonder if prohibitions against incest weren't Spencerist recognitions of the perpetuity of the human species.

Do you cut your temple locks?
BEcause I have felt his prsence in my life so evidently. In everything that I do, in everything that I am about to do, I feel that He is always there to guide me. I know He's there. It seems to me that you believe He's there, not know He's there. Presently, I'm reading a faith statement. How do you know it is His presence? I asked my mother once if she was happy. She said yes. I knew this was BS, so I countered with the question, "Have you actually found happiness, or have you found something and called it happiness?" Of faith and knowledge, I ask the same: Have you found knowledge, or have you found faith and called it knowledge?
Somewhere out there there's a greater being that has made all things possible.Those "all things" also include homosexuality, whether in humans, canines, primates, or otherwise. It's part of nature, and is therefore natural. Masturbation isn't unnatural just because it doesn't procreate. In fact, there are parts of the world where procreation is a bad thing due to resources (e.g--Africa).
There is another level in life, than just the reality of the world. There is not just the physical but also the spiritual. I agree. Where we probably differ is that in light of such a fact, I wonder why we would wish to limit our potential within that reality to the finite product of a single-volume anthology. For two-thousand years, people have reformulated Christian faith with no sterling result; the outcome is a world that is ready to pass Christian values by. It's not that the values are bad, but that they're baseless and unyielding. I understand that your faith compels you to this opinion, but I also see that faith and its result as divisive and detrimental. Christian harmony can be a presence in the world; it simply requires better tolerance. Understandably, this is God's command, according to the faith, but Western Christians don't seem that inclined to adhere to those points: God says Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. Barbaric Christians in the past used this and other Biblical justifications for murder. Why not now? Just like the homosexual prohibitions, this is what God commands. Point being: we know this is a bad idea, to be killing people in a free society for religious disagreements. But that doesn't change the Bible. We see that people have adopted civil tolerance before; what, just because the law doesn't force one to respect someone, they might as well go forth condemning? I just don't understand it philosophically. It seems an arbitrary faith point designed to reinforce existing prejudices. And that, sir, is why I object.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

You seem to agree with homosexuality despite your claim of being a fellow believer.

However, it would be of much help if you would tell me, which aspect of Christianity has made homosexuality a rightful practise? Is that not the same justifying other sinful doings such as stealing and killing?:cool:

Hello again, Tiassa!

It's great to see that you have been reading my replies and thinking them through, as I have yours. :cool:

Hmmm, this is a tough one. Why do I believe in the God that I believe in...
It's crucial to understand that Christianity requires a lot of faith and most of the time it's a matter of God, touching your life. I have experienced a lot of hard trials and tribulations and I'm sure that you have too, possibly even worse than I have. However, during these times, my parents and friends have continually advised me to pray to this God in the bible. I did, and I opened my heart, and it is amazing how much it made a difference. I don't know how to describe it to you, but it's a feeling of peace. A sense of comfort, knowing that I'm not in control of my own life, and I don't have to control it because my life is in His hands, and I know with much faith that he will never let me fall; only stumble.
Thus, I believe and you're right, I know that God is with me always. The faith itself is a result of God's grace. God planted this faith in my heart and I try my best to make it grow.

You may not understand, where I'm coming from, because my experience is personal, and it is not until you've experienced it yourself will you understand too. But, one day in your life, God will find you and he too will touch your life. The only thing you have to do is to open your heart and humble yourself. Admit, that God is greater than us mere humans.
If it makes you feel better, take comfort in knowing that no one has the ability to fully comprehend God's ways, not even me, because God works in mysterious ways. But I have enough faith to know that his ways are best for my life, and for the life of everyone else in this world. I also think, that God has intended for us to not fully understand everything because we are not God. We don't have the same intellect or wisdom to understand what he understands. Thus creates another basis for the admittance that he is far greater than us. We are his creations and He is the Creator who loves his creations.

I hope I have made sense of myself. I hope this has made you understand where my faith has rooted from.

Till next time!:)

As long as they are able to give biological birth to their own offspring. Otherwise they should be treated as all other sexual deviants.

Whats wrong with homosexuals.

I've heard that christians think it is bad because of Sodem and Gamora. Thats the only reason. They just percieved it as being bad. it doesnt even say in there bible there is something wrong with it. I certainly aint gay, but I can understand what those people go through.

The pope is apologizing to the protestants jews all these people. How long will it be till he apologizes to gays?

Eddie,

Just to let you know something...

"your" America is not my America.

I think people like you need to be reminded of that every time you roll your flag-tatooed asses to showboat your vision of the world in public. Wellcome to freedom, if you can comprehend what "freedom" means. Patriot my fannie.

.... especially when they cut their own throat. Take Ed Anger's uh, point:
As long as they are able to give biological birth to their own offspring. Otherwise they should be treated as all other sexual deviants.So it would seem procreation is the standard. Well, Ed, I hope you've never masturbated; you just made yourself a sexual deviant. Oh, yeah, what about those wasted sperm when you take a leak? Did your wife have her period, lately? She's a deviant, since her sexuality didn't cause procreation.

I know it seems like a nice idea, Ed, but given what sexual repression does to society, it's a stupid idea. Try again, unless of course you're happy being listed as a sexual deviant.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

While Christ never spoke directly about homosexualty, Christians like to debate which parts of Hebrew law remain intact. Predictably, it's whatever portions support a given Christian's preexisting prejudices. At my Catholic high school, priests unqualified by Leviticus 21 operated in violation of the Law. Laws against tattoos, cutting one's hair, and specific types of mourning have gone by the wayside. Indoor plumbing has revised perceptions of Laws pertaining to hygeine.

Beyond that, there's some strange Pauline balderdash at play, but again it's just an evangelist putting words in Jesus' mouth and attributing his own prejudices to the scripture.

OT-based prohibitions against homosexuality are not particularly well-founded in light of the adaptable Christian faith.

And it's always worth reiterating that where Sodom and Gamorrah are involved, it's a better thing to give your daughters to be gang-raped by a mob than to let a man have anal sex. We should always keep such a value in proper context.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

what?

From what I've heard they think gay is evil because the place was destroyed because the townspeople tried to descend on angels of the same gender and they were generally gay, so thats why they think it is wrong. How did daughters being gang raped have anything to do with that?

That God would prefer you throw your daughters out to be gang raped than any man take it up the yang. I mean, angels praise that sort of thing.

The irony is, well ... yeah.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I see. I thought you agreed with that 'value'!:D

In its biblical context, well ... if that's what God says is right, that's what God says is right.

That's why I've pretty much cast off conventional religions; I still have an ornery reverence for the greater mystery, but the formalisms of human religion by and large reduce God to a finite sum.

Or something like that. It's hazy in here and I'm listening to Floater right now, so I'm just gonna grin right alongside you :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Salient asked me some time ago what my ideas are on the essence of Christianity.
I have not answered the question. But now the time is right, since tiassa and Elbaz have done some work for me. I wanted others to bring up the point in a somewhat explicit manner...
True faith is Love (or charity), for that is God. The Law and it is not arbitrary!
The laws that are 'received' are arbitrary. (e.g. the 10 commandments -Exodus 20- are completely arbitrary of nature.)
If one thinks that right and wrong, good and evil are defined by some received wisdom, you are become as sounding brass (I Cor 13). For you are in the hands of arbitrariness. Have you not noticed that all the received laws are in the old testament and the the coherent logical rules are in the new testament? (read e.g. St.Matt 22:40)
This is what sets Christianity apart from (most) other religions and it is the essence of Christianity.
Unfortunately most have forgotten (or are just too stupid to realize) this.

I dont really look at Judaism, my religion the way other people do. I believe that God is one, and God is everywhere.

Love and feelings and good and bad are undefined. What is bad to someone is good to another. Thats why a common goal in my religion is to become united and part of the whole. Not really agreeing but understanding all of this.

Now I dont like the idea of christianity, because firstly, the whole idea of a virgin having a child sounds like a person lying through their nose. She probably wouldnt admit she did it with a deadbeat that ran away because she would have been treated very poorly.

Secondly, its so contradictory. The idea of Good vs Bad is bogus. It propogates so many things like hate against homosexuals, and abortions. This is hitler behaviour. That is in my opinion a bad quality.

And charity as merljin pointed out, is sortof a piece God. Its like becoming part of the whole, which is imperative in completing what I consider the purpose of mankind as taught by Judaism - controlling our surroundings and nature.

I have so many things to say about it, but the people are who define it. And such people as tony1 are giving it a bad name. Let me ask, do you question christianity? What do you take of its contradictory nature? Do you believe homosexuals are devoid of human nature and choice is no option? If you can genuinely answer these questions only in regard to yourself, then christianity is completely relevant. But I dont know anyone who can answer these not only logically, but honestly. I dont mean any insult to christians here, but its just a touchy subject.

I don't know. Adopting a gay is such a responsibility.
Have to take care of him etc
I guess not, I don't want to adopt a gay.
I think they can stand for themselves. :D

The following is admittedly my opinion and I'll probably end up with some critical responses but here goes anyway.

The way I percieve gay, is someone that practices sex with someone of the same sex, not just a plutonic relationship.

This means that all gay rights activists are pretty much trying to clear with everyone their sexual preference. Now this means that someone who's gay, isn't apart ofa religion or culture, but is just someone into some kinky sex. (well to them it's kinky)

Personally I wouldn't want to know if a person was gay, just as much as a person thats into beastiality does funny things with farm animals. (illegal)

Now to put Gay and Adoption together, your adding a child to a home with people that have their version of kinky sex.
This is possibly where abuse could start, or worse that child could be scared for life with the bullying of other children, and people making hate statements.

So you could look at the fact that a gay family is going to cause welfare problems for the child.

Personally I'm going to stick to being a Homophobic hetrosexual male.

Thanks for bringing beastiality into the discussion.

It's horrible for someone to have to stay in the closet all their lives because
the 'good people' can't see the beauty in a meaningful relationship with a
cute ewe. Not too long ago the Town Judge had his career, and marriage, destroyed
because some well meaning 'do gooder' reported him to the Chief of Police.

Imagine everyone's embarassment when it turned out to be a just a jealous tiff!
Seems the local Sheriff had his eye on the same ewe!

The horrors that unthinking, unfeeling, 'good people' can do.

Again, thanks for bringing the problem to light. ;)

So the moral question is whether itīs right to have children if you believe that itīs not morally wrong to have sex for other purposes than procreation?

You left out that it has to be kinky too :D

This might have been stated already. There are way too many posts too read.

In my opinion, it is not "morally" right. If you are going by the Bible, it is a sin. For most non-religious people, it is getting to be more and more accepted. Especially in the US, where there are anti-discrimination laws.

As for parental gays.. It will not work. Children need two role models of the opposite sex. A mother and a father. I can not imagine a child growing up normally and as morally "good" with gay parents. It is not the way things are meant to be. You don't see gay animals do you?

Actually, yes, there are gay animals. Just watch discovery channel or punch 'animal homosexuality' into a search engine, and you'll see.

By the way, I do consider myself somewhat religious and I got nothing against them and I think gay adoption is morally fine. Its the christians who mistook information from the bible which eventually led to their feelings on homosexuals.

Gay sex is kinky? Since when did that happen!

I'm not entirely sure that homosexuals think what they do is kinky. Admittedly, it doesn't create human life, but that's not the issue. Or ... is it?

I'm fairly certain that heterosexual couples engage in activities that do not lead to procreation in the least. There once was a man named Horatio who was quite the cunning linguist! Oral sex will not make a woman pregnant any more than swallowing an apple seed will cause your stomach to sprout an orchard, yet both heteros and homos engage in this act.

It's interesting that there are laws requiring a license for marriage, while there are no laws for creating children. Children grow up in single households all across the country--are they somehow cheated later on in life? Maybe in the 50's the ideal family was the nuclear family, but in that time period it was also ideal to stay with the person you hated because it was socially unacceptable to not do so.

Things change (thankfully), and attitudes towards others are modified as well. Blast, this is turning into a soapbox.

Just as sex is not (hopefully) the central focus of a relationship, why should it matter what two loving adults do in their own bedroom. It's how they treat and raise the child that matters. You say the kid will get made fun of? Well, that happens because kids are unused to differences in others. Why? Primarily because of the attitudes their parents have towards others.

I always wonder why Christians are so against homosexuality. Yeah, yeah, it's an apparent abomination mentioned in the Bible. But isn't it interesting that God was the one that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, not the people that were against it? Besides, think about it. Heterosexuals can still think it's wrong, but it doesn't change the outcome of their personal salvation does it? That way, if it is indeed wrong then God will take care of the situation--no need to get delusions of grandeur and decide to oppose homosexuality because you're pretty sure God is against it.

God, who else here had a single parent growing up? I sure did and she did a great job, I feel. Gay, straight, or xenophilic--whatever! As long as they can manage to raise some decent kids, I say let 'em.

Thanks!

prag

;) Personally, I really choose to disregard any moral ties that go along with homosexuality, since I think that while morality is important for what you do, and what you can consciously control, it does not apply to primal urges. The foundation of our morality was formed when life existed on only one plane-the immeadiate, and while those immeadiate morals ring true, squeezing more complicated matters of science that our ancestors couldn't understand onto that same plane should be questioned today. Morality exists on many levels, not just the urgent, black or white, right or wrong that all morality has seemingly always existed on.

;) I'm only 14 and I came out last year. Certainly, I hope to have children. I wouldn't really be one of those people who say that my homosexuality is the biggest part of my life; I have no larger identity being gay than a heterosexual has being 'straight'.

;) I could probably be considered a 'far right' conservative; A devout follower of Rush Limbaugh. Yet I'm also an atheist and, of course, gay. So, although morality shouldn't exist tailored to the person (as is deeply explained in the 'Conservatives' forum), It should be encompassing the same levels in everyone; similar to the energy levels in an atom. No one's morals go along with their 'identity', as in their similarity with a larger group, yet should promate morality that is clear with a moral society. In other words, morality cannot be defined from person to person, yet not also from a general consensus. Morality speaks far deeper than law, and your morality is not defined by your conformity, or noncomformity. Morailty is defined as being comfortably ambiguos, yet extreme, on all peoples, all ideas, and all situations. There is no one idea that is always wrong.

Originally posted by Congratulations
A devout follower of Rush Limbaugh...Wow. And some of you think that a little thing like homosexuality is perverted. ;)


After reading this rather exhausting thread, I have a bunch of unrelated thoughts:

(1) The traditional definition of marriage involves two people, one man, and one woman. I'm personally in favor of opening that to other two-people (homosexual) unions. This raises the question, Why not open it to multiple person unions (harems, polyandry, etc.)? I don't have a good answer to that, but I am against polygamy. So I guess I am accepting of gay unions but not accepting of sexual communalism.

(2) Marriage is currently down on its luck as an institution. Straight people have run like hell from marriage for a few decades now. Pro-marriage people should be throwing their hats in the air at the idea of some new group wanting to get married. Instead, a lot of the pro-marriage people get all upset about gay marriages. Go figure.

(3) I think it's critical for kids to have male and female role models when growing up. Gay marriages mean the kid(s) will lack parents of a certain gender. Divorce commonly means the same thing, in practice, and I'm not in favor of banning divorce. If I were in a gay marriage family, I suppose I'd make sure the kids had a lot of quality time with their aunts and uncles (both official and unofficial.)

Who sleeps with who is pretty much irrelevant to a child having appropriate role models... after all, plenty of men do the heterosexual thang with the mothers of their children, and wind up being a complete non-entity to their ostensible family. This occurs even in non-divorce families.

(4) People who worry that gay couples will turn their adopted children into homosexuals are just projecting. If you're not prepared for your children to be different from you, in sexual orientation as in a hundred other ways, you shouldn't have children.

I don't think parents do choose their children's sexual orientations, but clearly, a lot of scared straights think that. Then of course they're shocked and self-blaming when their own kids turn out to be gay. Wouldn't we be better off in two ways if we just accepted that our offspring are going to be what they're going to be? Gay folks have had plenty of experience with hetero culture; while they might be disappointed upon discovering their daughters' sexual indiscretions may result in pregnancy, this just leads to a slightly longer "birds and bees" discussion.

(5) Yes, kids with gay parents might get teased at school for it. But their schoolmates will have to get in line behind all the religious, ethnic, and political minorities.

Peace.

A few points from one of them

I have spent all of my life listening to various opinions of straight people, holding court on what I should and should not be able to do even to the point of whether I should be allowed to live because I am attracted and exclusive to my own sex. In my youth I even spent a period being really pissed off at those heteros who 'gave me permission to exist' by being 'nice' to me.
I'm better now.

strgrl asked why we have to prance about in parades etc. Imagine having only one day in your year where you were allowed and free to be yourself and have the safety of numbers to do so. And every other day, have to be oppresed by people like you pontificating on our exitance.
On that one dayYou'd prance honey !!

As to the homophobics of the world I tend to concentrate on the phobia these days and remember that you fear me. Because for the longest time I was forced to fear you.

There was also a point made that males were made for females try telling this to all of the species that procreate as individuals without gender. I suppose God just never got round to those.

And to all of you above who accept or oppose gay people, please continue to do so in the sound knowledge that what you think doesn't matter one tiny little bit.
I and my lover will continue with or without your support. (That's not to say it's unwelcome)
And to all of you above who don't give a shit either way ... well done for being so normal.

As to gay adoption..
I know that I have a lot of love and knowledge to impart to any child and If our stability and finances can increase the quality of life for a little one with fewer options than me, then I would do so. Why haven't I ?

See my thread 'Daddy's little soldier'
I'm could never be sure I'd be doing it for the right,selfless reasons.

This debate has been fairly interesting just nothing new. Thats the failing of the arguement. In 36 years nothing new.

Much love to you all and if I sound like bitter old queen forgive me 99% of days I'm not.

One other small point.

Surely it is up to the gay couple (Male or female) to decide whether they have the collective ability to raise a child.
These situations are not entered into lightly and are always backed by experts, (Gay and straight I hope!)

The child in question would have a far more focused and continually reviewed upbringing than most.

It is a good thing that all situations are analyzed in this manner (The forum that is) I think it would be preferable for all if we could do so without baggage.
What happened to all those scientific open minds?

Double love with chopped nuts and syrup.

Parents are parents. Children aren't 'gender-specific' in how they percieve them.

AAP Endorses Gay Adoption (http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/04/usat-coparents.htm)

The American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed adoption by gay couples. Highlights:


* Legal "co-parent" status for gays would promote children's best interests, says pediatrician Joseph Hagan Jr., chair of the panel that authored the new American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy.

* Several million children in the USA are being raised by homosexual parents, surveys suggest.

* Having two legal parents would give these kids the same health insurance and survivor benefits as youngsters raised by straight married couples.

* Research shows that children of homosexuals develop just as normally as kids in heterosexual families, says behavioral pediatrics expert Ellen Perrin of Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston. She wrote a scientific summary used by AAP as the basis for its new policy.

* The new policy "is nothing but a misguided attempt to mainstream homosexual parenting that will be at the expense of children," says Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative public policy group in Washington, D.C. Research on gay families is very poor, he adds, "and there is evidence of sexual identity confusion. This policy trivializes the important contribution that both genders make to a child's development."

* David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a New York-based family issues think tank, says: "Children do best when they grow up with a mother and a father. We're going to find out with same-sex couples just what we found out with divorce. The children are at higher risk for problems.USA Today did not offer a link to view the AAP release itself. But the AAP website has some good information:

* AAP News Release (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/febsamesex.htm)

* AAP Policy Statement (http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html)

* AAP Technical Report (http://www.aap.org/policy/020008t.html)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

On that one dayYou'd prance honey !! strgrl asked why we have to prance about in parades etc. Imagine having only one day in your year where you were allowed and free to be yourself and have the safety of numbers to do so. And every other day, have to be oppresed by people like you pontificating on our exitance.

bbcboy - First of all I have never ridiculed or oppressed ANYONE in my life. I am a very opened minded person and I dont like people telling me that I have pontificated on their existance. Second of all, If i were wanted to be treated like an equal, then I have to act like an equal. If all you gay people want us to treat you like equally, guess what? You have to act like it. I have nothing against gay people, I have had my own same sex fantasies, so I would be a hypocrite to put gays down. I was just wondering why you guys go apeshit in SF at the parade. God, you dont have to bite my head off:D

Ever think that gays 'go apeshit in SF at the parade' for the same
reason straights go apeshit in NO during Mardi Gras?

It's FUN!

Take care ;)

Of course! What was I thinking! It is pretty fun, I do it all the time. I just think if someone wants to make a statement, thats not the right way to go about it. But if its all about fun - hey Im with em! :D

I just think if someone wants to make a statement, thats not the right way to go about it.What's not? Gay pride parades? Did you ever see what happened at Drumcree in Northern Ireland? And not a lick to do with gays ....;)

But I'm the type of person who looks at a gay pride parade, or a Mardi Gras, or Fremont Solstice Parade and thinks that this is what every day should be like: liquor and dope and sunshine, a corps of naked bicyclists, people showing off what God gave them, as such ... life is too short to be Presbyterian. Er ... okay ... that's a terrible way of putting it. ;) But there's a good number of people who know why that's A) funny, and B) not offensive. Those people well understand the benefit of having liquor and naked people running through the streets on a regular basis. :D

I mean, I think it's a great way to make a statement. Naked people, a party in the street: you have my attention. :p

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

PS ... For those of you who do not understand why the Presbyterian joke is both funny and inoffensive, you have my sincere apologies.

But there's a good number of people who know why that's A) funny, and B) not offensive.

Not offensive? Well not to me or you and some people. But I have a question. Do you have children? Because I do, and when I take my daughter (who is 3) to Berkeley or SF, I think it is offensive to have to hide my daughters eyes when a nudist walks by. Hey if you want to be nude and freaky - that is A OK with me, but dont subject my daughter to the sight of you dangling penis or breasts. I think they can run around naked all they want to - in their own homes, or they should designate a national naked day, and Ill know not to take my kid outside:D

Peace

stRgrL

Well, I was just about to spit your head out, because as I saiad I got a little hot myself, and now here ya go again.:(
Tell me what's so bad in the naked human form, Ok maybe not walking thru a supermarket but why hide the eyes of your child?

You do understand that such actions have been proven time and time again to instill fear and insecurity about the human body. If the child sees anyone naked she may question it. And then hey mom, guess what, you get to provide the answer. It's not so bad as you may think. I assume you instil honesty in all other dealings with her and yet you hide her eyes from such an indiginous truth.

She has the innocense of her years to accept without question her mothers word. NOw is when it should count. you never know she may grow up without her mothers naivety.

Please don't take this as some kind of personal vendetta. It's truly not. I wonder what anyone else thinks about your comments?

Oh okay, have your head back anyway:rolleyes:

Ooh, this going to be interesting. Okay, If you had a 13 years old daughter, would you let her walk around naked? Would you let a 40 year old man walk around naked in front of her? Maybe your right about nudity not being that bad, but I was taught it was and I - well I have issues:D Anyhoo, would that be totally innocent? What about 8 year walking around naked? When everyone else is walking around clothed and my daughter sees a 40 year olds penis, isnt she going to wonder what the hell is going on? I figured it would affect her in a negative way. i could be wrong. Im no genius. And did you call me naive????:D

Groove out:cool:

stRgrL

All of your scenarios have a similar thread in that they all seem a little far fetched. Of course there will be times when nakedness is inappropriate this wasn't my point, and of course there are things in the world which young children need to be guarded from.

It is my humble opinion that it is your 'issues' that she may need guarding from. Celebrate them, deal with them, keep them or abandon them. Whatever, just keep from passing them on. Think about what those issues do to you in a negative way and ask yourself if this is the legacy you wish to leave her.

Naivety in this case is just that. You understand that you have issues and yet you see no harm in passing them on :confused:
Again, just an observation from an objective viewpoint. I hope you take no offence. I know what it's like to have your life and viewpoints pulled apart by people who don't know who the hell you are ;) Which has been my point in the whole thread... See?

Love to you and your little PERSON.
Bill

Okay, when I meant issues, I meant things that happened to me as a child. I WILL NOT pass those on to my daughter. And of course my values and morals will be passed on, I mean isnt that what parenting is about? Passing on your values? Trying to do whats best for your children? Whether my child chooses to take my values or make her own, is totally up to her. I encourage her to make her own mind. I dont want a little minime running around. :D Anyhoo, when I hide her eyes from nude bodies, it is a natural instict to protect her. I didnt have time to weight out the consequences before I did that. Although, she does see me nude and I dont feel that is bad. But, I still dont understand how Im passing my issues on. By protecting her? Please tell me more. I truly value others opinions. Peace

Your little girl is 3 yes? I seem to remember reading that, that is the age when cognitive memory first starts in most humans. So here you are faced with a blank page on which to write certain laws and rules for life. That's basic parenthood.

Don't play with fire.
Don't talk to stramgers.
Dont wear blue eyeshadow etc.
Possibly the most primal emotion we learn is fear. Stay in the den til mom get's back little fox it's about survival.

It's well documented that phobias are probably learned experiences, and that children much younger than your own can pick up on vibrations from a parent.
Things like fear of the dentist or hospitals are prime examples. By shielding your daughters eyes from nudity instead of explaining it in a light hearted simple way she learns that it's
A: a bad thing, or B: something worthy if intense curiousity. (Many a 'Ho' was born this way!)
She's seen you naked... Did she question this or accept it as her mommy being her mommy and nothing more?

At the stage she's at now I disagree completely about her choosing your values or not. She's in no way capable of such choices and the decisions you make for her now can mold the rest of her life. Look back - and see.

I dont envy you your task in todays world. You can only do the best you can and hope like hell. I guess having a kid must be really overwhelming at times. But such a joy too :D

We're all in your corner and a dick & some tits never hurt anyone. only the brains (Or lack of same) behind them.

So do like aunty mame says and open a new window every day.

See ya in the next thread

Bill

bbc,

1) No, when she seen me naked, I didnt feel that was unusual, because - afterall - she was taken from my stomach and she fed on my breast for nine months.

2) I didnt say that she was capable of choosing her own decisions in life - I will continue to influence her in the best way I can and hope that when she is of age, she will make the correct decision. Dont tell me that nothing that you learned from when you were younger influenced some of your decision making today. Anyhoo, I hate to sit here and argue the dynamics of parenting with someone who is not a parent. Though I do cherish the advise you give me (god knows that I need help in more than 1 department). My point is this... I chose to give life to my child, and I will continue to protect her and teach her "The best way that I know how to" until she is old enough to make the right decisions.
And to get back to the topic - I dont care what preference you are - If you can show a kid love more than someone else can - Who care if your gay????

Groove on:cool:

*stRgrL*

Okay, okay
I'm sorry for ranting once again.
I'm going to up the St' Johns wart. I'd be happier supplying you with advice (Once requested of course!) if I wasn't so emotive. :rolleyes: Sometimes I just can't shut the fuff up.

I hope this hasn't put you off asking.

Many regards.

Originally posted by bbcboy
And to all of you above who accept or oppose gay people, please continue to do so in the sound knowledge that what you think doesn't matter one tiny little bit.It seems that it does matter.

The Alabama Supreme Court awarded child custody to a father rather than to the lesbian mother. The Chief Justice declared homosexuality immoral and worse, with language so strong (http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/temp/0215-137.html) I can't imagine that he can possibly claim impartiality.
I write specially to state that the homosexual conduct of a parent -- conduct involving a sexual relationship between two persons of the same gender -- creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others.Shades of Whizzer White in Bowers v. Hardwick.

Peace.

Hey Goof, How ya doin'?

The point that those opinions didn't matter was on a personal level to me, and you're right there will always be those in offices of power that apply their own prejudices to rulings in any dispute.

You have to remember that this is good ol' cousin-fuffing Alabama here tho' I don't think many of the laws of that state actually apply in the real world.

We've already established in other threads that god botherers often get it wrong thru fear and prejudice I dont think the civilised world has much to fear, and if they're quoting statistics then we all know that these are never a truly accurate interpretation of any situation. It just depends on who pays for the research and what questions are asked, by whom, de blah de blah de blah. I feel for the lady who lost her kids it's a shitty world when this can be allowed. Maybe she should move!!
Take a look at the tori quote below It applies well to this scenario

Thank you for the reference it was very interesting, oh and God bless America especially Alabama :bugeye:

cynical who argue prefrences of sex,dear friends we all are aheading for asexual reproduction to move the living race on.

I can't wait for the world to reach that state.I think it will be the new dawn of humankind. The age of aquarius??

Can I still do the wild thing with boyz tho'? It's important to me


:D :D

piffi,


I was wondering how many people out there actually think it is immoral.

Why should it be immoral? It depends of your conception of immorality...

Love,
Nelson

Even postulating that gay sex is inherently kinky, how on earth is that a reason to prohibit adoption?

I mean, what, the child might accidentally come home somday to see mom and her partner boffing? That's normal. It is what Freud referred to as the 'primal scene'.

We may as well run background checks on all adoptive parents as to what positions they have tried. I mean, the possibility of coming home from school early only to see mom in a leather bustier is obviously going to cause massive psychological damage, no? :rolleyes:

In any case, new thread here! Political implications. Please respond? Pretty please? With suger on top?http://www.sciforums.com/t6458/s/thread.html

Keep in mind that Freud was a nutter.

i was brought up with hetro parents and im a lesbian. the way that they have brought me up is wonderful. i am me and they accept me for who i am and have always encourage me to get married and have children. even with my recent 'outing' they still wish for it to be possible for me to do all that. i do believe that there is a god of some sort. that person loves me and created me for who i am. he made me 'gay' and i decided to act on my feelings and explore them with another girl. dont get me wrong ive been with a guy but it never did it for me. for those people that think its morally wrong for gays to be parents: just try and stop me! im entitled to be a mother and have every intention to have a father figure in there lives in the way of an uncle or grandad. i only hope that the world is changing to give us the same rights as everybody else to marry with family and bridesmaids etc. i will fight till the day i die for the equality that i also deserve.

you go madambutterflie!!!

I have a gay brother but I accept him for who he is.
To each his own.

I am not prejudice in any way, and there are so many cultures
I am still learning about. Love is a wonderful thing...
best of luck to you.

one of my friends has a child, an 11 year old boy. The kid is top of his grade, is also doing rather well in sports. Very grounded and outgoing. So ummm, I don't think the fact he has two dads has hurt him in any way. He loves his dads, he thinks the world of them. So for anyone who thinks homosexuals shouldn't have children, well, perhaps the problem is you and not them, because I have never met a child yet whose parents are gay that has suffered in any way.

Have you met adults who have two dads or to mothers? Are they always fine to?

Hi A4Ever, I've only meet one adult who was raised in a gay family. He is also gay, and no not from the way he was raised, they adopted him when he was a teenager.

There was a study I was trying to find that I read a few years ago into kids who were raised by gay parents, however I can't find that study at the moment and will have to ask someone else if they know who did it, however did find these links for you

Children of gay parents studied (http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/29555.html)
Fact and Figures about kids with gay parents (http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html)
Lesbian and Gay Parenting (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html)

I think it is a logical and unstopable evolution that gay couples should be able to have children. First, the sexual act between them was prohibited. Then a gay marriage was prohibited. Now some people don't want them to raise children.

I don't think any major problems are being reported about children being raised by gay couples. Some of the problems will diminish as gay adoption becomes more comon.

Even if significantly more children who are adopted by gay people become gay themselves, there still doesn't have to be a problem:
making it a problem is the same as saying that being gay is a problem, which is the same as saying that there are to many threes in a forrest.

I think the greatest problem for gay adoptions is still the prejudice towards them.

It's a shame, so many unwanted children who need homes, and they are being denied families because of the sexuality of the family.

Here is an interesting case I have been following since it happened Let Him Stay (http://www.lethimstay.com)