Wait a minute!  Couples split up all the time.  While divorce rates of heterosexuals has steadily declined, it's still at about 38% of couples.  (http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html)  It is both ignorant and selfish on your part to make the statements you made above.  I don't think I've ever disagreed with you more on any topic.  I actually couldn't believe what I was reading!

Let's talk about the "love" you presume a same-sex couple can't have.  I've known very many heterosexuals who have no real concept of love, so to make the statement that a same-sex couple can't experience real love is just bigotry.  There is no way you or anyone else can make an accurate assumption of what another person feels, so you might as well remove this from your agrument.  Same-sex couples demonstrate the same companionship for each other that heteros do. They date, they move in together, and, yes, they break-up too.  If people should not be allowed to marry because they don't value the sanctity of marriage, then no one in this country should be doing it!  I, myself, am divorced and am very hetero.

As for screwing up the kids, what screws up the kids is not what the parents are doing, as the parents are more attentive and loving - it's the looks and ridicule from people like you!  A child involved in a same-sex divorce will go through the same emotions of a child in a hetero divorce - there's loss, confusion, guilty and fault.  That's not extraordinary.
(http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html)
(http://www.colage.org/research/facts.html)

And, where, do tell, did you come up with homosexuality leads to pedophilia and beastiality.  I'd love to see this research.  Fact is that although pedophilies typically commit homosexual abuse, it's because many of them are in the closet.  These are men that are married to women, men that have been married to women, who have had girlfriends, or who aren't permitted sexual relations at all.  And, by the way, only 1/3 of abuse victims are boys, while men - both heterosexual and homosexual - are the primary perpetrators of pedophilia.  So, since boys make up only 1/3 of victims, it's safe to say that the majority of pedophilia is heterosexual, against girls.  It's like saying that pot leads to harder drugs.  While in some cases, that may be true, but there are a good many people content with the high they get from pot.  Of course, you never hear about those people.

Just like it's none of your business what your neighbor does in his own house, it's not up to you to define what homosexuality is and what it entails - unless you are homosexual.  I think this blog demonostrates a need for you to do some self-reflecting to discovery the real reason gay marriage upsets you so much that you have to make such extreme assumptions.  The issue here is not whether two same-sex people desire to profess their love and promise their lives to each other; the issue is most certainly some need for you to dictate your own morality on other people. 

I have this motto for my life and I think it will help you: "I can't control control anyone; my happiness depends on the actions of one person - me."

I hope you find a happier place.

xo,
Joey

 

 

"As for screwing up the kids, what screws up the kids is not what the parents are doing, as the parents are more attentive and loving - it's the looks and ridicule from people like you!  A child involved in a same-sex divorce will go through the same emotions of a child in a hetero divorce - there's loss, confusion, guilty and fault.  That's not extraordinary. "

I was raised by a gay.  It is not the ridicule from people that caused confusion to my siblings and I.  Everyone in my school knew, never once did anyone tease me about it.  People always asked questions about what it was like.  What caused confusion was needing a balance of a Mom and a Dad.  Not 2 dads.  My Dad is the one who taught me to fix my hair, put on make-up, paint my toenails ect., the things my mother should have done.  Don't get me wrong, my Dad did the best he could, and was very loving.  I agree with you, divorce is a total nightmare for a child whether it be gays parents or straight parents.  Bottom line on the divorce issue is when you decide to have kids, you should do you best to stick it out and get along until the child is 18.  (unless your spouse is abusive or destructive)

 

Couples split up all the time.  While divorce rates of heterosexuals has steadily declined, it's still at about 38% of couples. 

Speaking of ignorance, I am glad you are able to quote the divorce rates of hetero couples Unfortunately we cannot compare data as none exist for homosexual couples. Therefore, we must compare something else; children living out of wedlock.

Let's talk about the "love" you presume a same-sex couple can't have.  I've known very many heterosexuals who have no real concept of love, so to make the statement that a same-sex couple can't experience real love is just bigotry.

I would argue that a percentage of hetero couples still remain chaist before wedding. since homosexuality is by definition, a sexual preference that this "chaist" is not a requirment in this segment of society. Do not misunderstand me. Do i think gay couple can love each other? Sure. It is not the lifestyle in itself that I object to. It is the ill effects on our children and thereby the morality of our society.

The rates of chilren living out of wedlock show signficant increases in countries where gay marriage is legal. There is a 10% or more spike in these countries soon after they pass these laws.

What does this mean? It shows that the "together rate" is much lower when gay marriage is allowed thereby showing that indeed the divorce rate would be higher. Why does this matter? It matter because a child need to parents to thrive and flourish physiologicly. Studies have also shown that children have less social issues with a parent of each sex. Fatherless children are more likely to engage in drug use, violence, and promiscuity. When we give gays the same legal status as heteros, we then give them equal status for adoption. I belive hetero couple should be a priority when deciding issues of adoption. We want what is BEST for these children. Im not saying they should not adopt either. Surely if a same-sex couple wants to adopt they should be able to considering it still is a much better life for many children who are victims of neglect or abuse. It has little do do with how the rest of society views them and for you to say as such shows your ignorance.

And, where, do tell, did you come up with homosexuality leads to pedophilia and beastiality.  I'd love to see this research.

Im not going to do your research for you. I never claimed that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, clearly it does not. Learn to read! I said that if we allow gay marriage that we then cannot discriminate when it comes to other "groups" who challenge the morality of our other laws regarding marriage. There are already groups attempting to change legal marriage ages and paligamy laws. Again, in countries where gay marriage is legal, these groups are becoming more and more vocal and in the case of denmark they recognise a political party that supports beastiality and pedophilia. Watch what happens to us 20 years from now if we allow gay marriage.

The issue here is not whether two same-sex people desire to profess their love and promise their lives to each other; the issue is most certainly some need for you to dictate your own morality on other people. 

Damn right! I will and we should dictate our morality on other people.

I have this motto for my life and I think it will help you: "I can't control control anyone; my happiness depends on the actions of one person - me."

This statement is exactly what is wrong with libs today. They care not about the morality of our collective society, but rather are only concerned with themselves and what the goverment can do for them. This is the very selfishness I speak of.

If the general population is only concerned for themselves with thier own morality then our nation and way of life would surely fail miserably. Next thing is you will say is.... It does not matter if I steal from my employer, or this rich guy, it does not prevent thier pursuit of happienss. I can kill my dog for barking too loud, it doesn't hurt anybody. Hey, consenting 14 year olds should be able to have sex with consenting 25 year olds, it does not hurt anyone. Oh wait, we are already seeing this with our female teachers. The liberal courts give them a slap on the wrist and allow them to walk free to do it again. Get my drift?

We must dictate morality to those who do not live by a moral code.
"Do what thy wilt, will be the whole of the law." ~Alister Crowley.
This is the code of the most famous satanist ever, often described as the most evil man that ever lived.

 

Divorce rates for gay couples DO exist... you just have to search for it.
You could make the same statement about the catholic priesthood... that as an institution with its policies of celibacy and patriarchical dominance that it also leads to high incidents of paedophilia.

You're moaning about the morals of collective society... based upon whose moral standards... your own or that of a subculture that you happen to be a part of... that doesn NOT represent the rest of us. Who cares about children born out of wedlock? Who wants to reattach a stigma to it... you and your grouping does. Who wants to destroy such narrow minded societal standards... I certainly do...for one. You dream of the 1950's where the 'scarlet letter' still had power... where sexuality and individuality was supressed ...where women were subjugated to the male figures of society.
I reject your desire to reinstitute this christian Taliban mentality.
Gay couples probably statistically raise less neurotic children than fundamentalists.
 

Alright David, Show me these gay divorce rates. How can there even be such a statistic if gay marriage is not even legal in most states and only recently allowed in one.

If you even take the time to read my blog and understand where i am coming from it is not from a theological point of view, as I do not consider myself a christian. So your arguement about "Christain Taliban" is way off mark.

I am going to say this only on more time!!! I never stated that gay marriage or homosexuality leads to pedophilia. I said, when we allow gay marriage we also give legal standing and normalize every other type of relationship, including pedophilia, paligamy and beastiality. These groups exist and are pressing for rights just as gays have done since the 60's.

You're moaning about the morals of collective society... based upon whose moral standards... your own or that of a subculture that you happen to be a part of... that doesn NOT represent the rest of us

This does not even make sense. Who is this subculture??? Is it the 98% of us who are NOT GAY??? Homosexuals comprise less than 2% of our population. Now exactly who is it that not being represented? Sexuality and individuality have never been more unhindered in our history. Some may even suggest that it is exaclty this irresponsible exersise in personal freedom that has lead to many of the woes our society faces.

We elect our LAWMAKERS so those who vote decide whos morals are to be followed in this country and that usually means MAJORITY RULES!

Gay couples probably statistically raise less neurotic children than fundamentalists

Probably? I guess this means that you are talking out of your ass again, and are trying to make up statistics as you go along, like most libs.

The fact is that children raised by a mother and a father are the most mentally balanced. FACT! I repeat again, for those who do not read....Gay couples can raise healthy, loving and "straight" children.  It is simply that I feel they should not have the same legal standing in court.

Get it?

 

You scream morality, but yet you're unwilling to realize that homosexuality is abnormal just because people are feeding you lines such as, "these are normal feelings", "it's natural", blah blah blah. Well, guess what my friend, a 40 year old member of NAMBLA speaks those very same lines about his "normal, natural feelings" of being physically and emotionally attracted to 8 year old boys. Do YOU think that is normal, or abnormal?!? Course, I'm sure you'll say normal...by using your own logic, correct?

If homosexuality is SO normal, why has there been such a huge influx since the revolutionary sexual heyday of the 60's? Why is it that sex-ed in public schools has constituted an indoctrination program into homosexuality and prosmiscuity? They teach, "If you like it, do it". They encourage junior high school students to explore their "sexuality". I would hardly call that being "normal" when it's forced-fed into a child's brain.

(Sorry to get off topic, Shayne, but...it has to be done). Let me clarify something for you, since you're obviously a pot-appeaser, "experimentating"(or more than experiementing) with pot while as a teenager does indeed lead to harder drugs. And seriously, don't try to argue with me on this one. I've counseled these kids in group homes, rehabs, teen AA/NA centers(out-patient meetings), my teenage friends were those very kids, and lastly...*I* was one of those kids. Teens start using drugs for a reason. Contrary to popular belief, it's not about being "cool", or "fitting in", or "peer pressure". Please, do not speak of what you do not know, or what you've been forced-fed to believe. I strongly urge you to contact a local teen AA/NA center and ask to sit in on a few sessions. Go hear it for yourself...

 

First off, I never made any claim that homosexuality was "normal" or "natural"; those were not in my post at all.  The closes mention I made to something be "not extraordinary" are the emotions a child involved in a divorce feels.  Read a little closer.  That said, I'm not agreeing with you that it's "abnormal". 

a 40 year old member of NAMBLA speaks those very same lines about his "normal, natural feelings" of being physically and emotionally attracted to 8 year old boys 

Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, no matter how you try to mash them together.  If you read my post (I see you conveniently left out the response to my child abuse info), the MAJORITY of sexual abuse is perpetrated by HETEROSEXUAL men against girls.  What keeps pedophilia from being legalized is that there is a VICTIM; not a willing partner as there is in homosexuality.  You're trying to make two completely different things the same and they're not.

Please, do not speak of what you do not know...

I am speaking of what I know.  While your experiences may have been at one end of the spectrum, mine have obviously been at the other.  I know many, many people who only drink alcohol, or only smoke pot, but have no interest in expermenting with the drugs that have taken you down.  So, therefore, neither of us can make an assumption that our experiences are the norm.

Further more, I don't know what kind of sex-ed you had in school, but the curriculum I was exposed to didn't teach anything about doing what you like.  You have not presented any research or any kind of statistics to back up your claims that homosexuality is "bad".  You've stated only your personal opinion and, sweetheart, your rights end where another's begins.  That, ma'am is freedom.  Love it or leave it; don't try to push your lifestyles on others.  You certainly wouldn't appreciate it if the shoe was on the other foot - if heterosexuality was "abnormal" and you wanted nothing more than to devote your life to the man you loved.  Meanwhile, the whole rest of the bigots and asses in this country spit on you and told you that you were corrupting our society with your sexuality, and "no" you can't marry the person you love.  Yeah, that's what the problem with this country is - you people try to push your own views but never take the time to look at things from someone else's.

 

Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, no matter how you try to mash them together.  If you read my post (I see you conveniently left out the response to my child abuse info), the MAJORITY of sexual abuse is perpetrated by HETEROSEXUAL men against girls.  What keeps pedophilia from being legalized is that there is a VICTIM; not a willing partner as there is in homosexuality.  You're trying to make two completely different things the same and they're not.

 

Ok...Let's try this again.

Pedophilia does not always have a recognizable victim and thereby has the potential to become lawful such as it is becoming in "politically correct" northern europe and scandinavian countries. The type of pedophilia I refer to is NOT the "preacher/choir boy" variety nor the uncle who molests his 9 years old niece. It is of the "threashold type. The kind that, even today gains support with many americans. It is the type where the age difference is not very great and the child is in thier teens. Not fully mentally aware or developed, but sexually mature. The kind where one will hear the argument "They marry at 13 in some cultures". These young men and women are the victims of this crime.

14 year old boys who engage, apparently willingly, in "adult" relationships involving sex with thier 25 year old teachers are such victims. However, more and more we bear witness to the leniency of the court on these female pedophiles. To think that if one day when society "lets down it's guard" on moral fortitude, that this type of relationship could not be accepted as "normal" or a minimum "legal" is simply ignorant.

Our society acts much differently when the "victim" is a female. It is this very ambiguity and unfair treatment under the law that will lead to more tolerance and acceptance of this practice as a whole.

20-30 years ago, homosexuality was not nearly as accepted nor practiced as it is today. Hmmm, maybe MORE people have been born with the so-called "gay gene", ("I was born this way" excuse) in the past 30 years? No. I argue that it has been our "politcal correctness" and having been desensitized to it's effects on society on a long term.

My point is, as a society we become desensitized over a very long period of time to what is acceptable to a point where is becomes "normal", and now to the point where we even need special protections under the law for something that at one time was illegal in most states. What do you think sodomy laws were for? I doubt they were to prevent consenting hetero couples from anything. 30 years from now, do not be surprised, when debates about gay marriage is a thing of past and that the new debate is "Should we change the age of legal consent or even the definition consent.

While we are at it...why can't I have 3 wives? It isn't hurting anybody. For that matter why not let me do it with sheep, if will not affect anyone pursiut of happiness, will it? Ah, nevermind. I wouldn't want to push my views on anyone, that might make them upset.

 

First of all, marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Secondly, homosexual "marriage" stemmed from a man who could not visit his partner in ICU(this happened in upstate NY). Well guess what, if my non-existent boyfriend or fiancee were in ICU, *I* couldn't visit him either without permission from his parents(or next of kin).

Thirdly, homosexuality is just simply, abnormal. The basic function of humans is to procrate. Same sexes can NOT accomplish that - end of story.

 

my non-existent boyfriend or fiancee

Explains a lot of your agnst, especially if you feel that The basic function of humans is to procrate. If this is all my life meant, I think I'd be upset to be single, too.  But, I have found that life and relationships are about so much more than that - like balance, affection, trust, companionship, telling secrets, making breakfast, playing a game, laughing, crying, fighting and making up, building things together, etc.  And, as I said, you need be concerned only with your own happiness; let everyone else be concerned with theirs, unless, of course, their happiness interfers with the rights of someone else to pursue happiness - then, and only then, is it your business.  A gay couple getting married doesn't hurt you one bit.  You just want to sit on your high horse and dictate morals because somehow that makes you feel important.  Keep going like that, and you'll be alone much longer...

 

Can't say I'm surprised. Intersting stuff.
 

Leadbottom, you are saying what others don't want to hear in our PC society. 

Marriage by its definition cannot be between the same sex. 

Homos are seeking the same rights and privileges of married couples for tax purposes and other such reasons.  That the Hollywood crowd is exalting this lifestyle and "normalizing it" on TV and movies is telling in itself.  There has been quite a push to legitimize it in the hearts and minds of young people and I think that most young people are now conditioned to be of the mind that "it is OK ~ let others do what they want" type of thinking.  Therein lies the problem.

the homo agenda has been portrayed to us now as "normal"  "alternative"  "another lifestyle" that we should tolerate for the sake of being PC. 

I tell you political correctness is ruining our world and the culture as we know it.    And your fears about adoption are valid.  Of course the lawyers  are salivating at the thoughts of representing gay couples and this new avenue of business for them if marriage between gays is admitted.

Read some books about the politically correct Europeans and what that has done to thei r countries.  They no longer speak out against radical Muslim because by God they are loaded with them in their own countries.  They are afraid of them. 

Pym Fortuyn was assassinated in Holland for running on a political platform to change immigration to his country.  BTW he was gay also but that was not the reason he was killed.  He was speaking out against the flood of Muslims in his country and their strain on the social services and refusing to integrate into Dutch society.   Also Theo Van Gogh who was killed for directing a film by an Arab woman portraying atrocities to women under muslim society.  Beware of islamic facsism. 

 

 

Great story and I'll have to take your side on this one!
 

Although this is overly done and you shouldn't receive kudos for it, because you didn't right it yourself, I do agree however though the gov should not decide who should get married and who should not. This country was founded on freedom of religion. Just check the Establishment Clause. However, Clinton in 1996 signed the DOMA and federal defined marriage as man and woman, which totally goes against the Establishment Clause, in my opinion.
Anyways, Straight couple marriages do have divorces and quite a few. Cheating on significant others runs in both Gay relationships and Straight relationships. Although I believe in the bible, I don't want to force my beliefs on those that don't agree with them, it isn't for me to answer for, it is for them, in my opinion. But once again, I strongly believe that the Gov. Should not decide who should and shouldn't get married. Their place is to make laws that would make the US safer, and back the rights of the people, and for the people.
 

Thanks for sharing Shona. I admire your stand on the federal governments role in making law regarding this issue. These things must be looked at carefully to determine if it really is protectionary or it is the government attempting to infringe on our civil rights.

The ironic thing is that my religious beliefs have little (actually nothing) to do with my views on gay marriage. To me, it is the legal implications that matter most.

It is not for me to judge homosexuality as moral or not, and I do not make this judgement. My point has always been that gays should not have the same status for adoption. The traditional family is still proven to be best for a child. A loving gay couple can certainly adopt, but a hetero couple should have the preference due to the effects on the child. I have also posted statistics of gay divorce rates in Denmark and they do show that it is indeed significantly higher. Again, placing children of these marriages at an even greater risk of unstability.

Since homosexuality is a learned behavior determined by environment (people are not born with it), I also prefer it not be taught in schools as an acceptable lifestyle. It is about as acceptable to me as experimenting with drugs or premarital sex. Will my child try these things. Probably. Do I have a responsibility to teach them what I believe is "right or wrong"? Absolutely. It is a little hard to instill my values in my children when our public schools teach the opposite. Schools need only to teach acedemics. I am tired of parents placing the responsibility on schools and government to teach morality to our children because they cannot or will not.  

 In addition, my other main viewpoint is that of other types of relations that my fall under the umbrella of what could be considered a legal marriage. Again I mention paligamy and pedophilia. People may say that it could never happen, but I argue that 30 years ago, people claimed that gay marriage would never happen. In these countries where gay marriage is now legal, is where we also find the most vocal of these types of groups seeking to lower the age of consent and the right to have sex with animals. It sounds pretty sick, but it's happening now. The courts in denmark recently ruled that a child molesters group must be regognized as a policical party by their government.

Marriage is and always has been between men and women. Gays do not deserve any special consideration of the law because they choose to have a different type relationship than what marriage has been defined as for hundrends if not, thousands of years.

I do think that they should have the same financial benefits as married couples and have a easier path to adoption and a right not to be discriminated against. I belive this can be answered by legal civil unions. I simply do not understand why we must redefine the definition of marriage to appease less than 2% of the population.

Belive me, I am much more open minded and accepting of homosexuality than I appear. It's hard to sound it, when I am in opposition to gay marriage due my political stance. I have (and have had) plenty of gay friends and have no problems speaking freely with them about how I feel. While they may not agree, they understand my point and it does not change the nature of our relationships. They know that my views are not personal, religious, or fear based, but rather grounded in tradition, potential legal precident, and the overall effect on the remaining 98% of our society. 

 

I totally understand your post, although I think we can agree to disagree on this.

It is funny though, Gay people don't have gay kids, it seems straight people do. And I don't think it is a gene even those some scientific evidence supports it, I think it is deeper then that. I am not 100% sure what causes people to be gay, whether it is in born or learned behavior, I am not gay so I really can't justify any argument in this.

Either way, it seems most gay couples would like to adopt out of the state system and not new born babies, where as hetero seem to want to adopt more of the new born babies. There are many kids in the state system wanting to be adopted.

I do agree that having a straight couple is the best way to raise a child. But marriage has gone down the tubes, and we have ALOT of children being raised in single family homes, even some being raised by gay parents, but were in the closet or tried to be straight and married and had kids. It happens, and what is the difference in a gay couple that had a child from a previous marriage?

A friend of mine that was raped (she is a lesbian) got pregnant (which is rare) and had a daughter, her daughter is around 13 now and she is boy crazy. My friend lives with her "life mate" in Liberal CT. So I am not too sure that it is going to be always a learned trait. There are straight couples out there that have one gay child, and several straight.

I personally see it as the gov. overstepping its bounds in saying who can marry who. Religously I am not for gay marriage, but because of what this gov. is founded on, and the freedoms we have, I just don't feel it is the gov.'s place to decide who should marry who. That is why it shouldn't be a law on it, so it isn't like they are getting special priviledges. The only law that should be made is a consenting adult. Other then that I don't really care.
Just my opinion. Anyways, Thank you for letting me post my opinion, and I enjoyed reading your points.
 

OH REALLY?

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong


01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

It's not natural, otherwise nature would have ensured we would have evolved as such.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior not a physical attribute.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Legalizing gay marriage would open the door to other legal standings such as; paligamy, pedophilia, and beastiality. (see denmark for an example). 

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

All describing a relationship beteewn a Man and a Woman.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

"Temporary" marriages should not be legal either.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

Statistics prove that a child most emotionally balanced when raise by parents of opposite sex. Therefore, homosexuals should be allowed to adopt, but not with the same legal status as a married, male/female couple.


07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

See Answer ..2

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

87% of Americans are religious. In this country the majority still rule. (well, until gay marriage is allowed that is)

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Children have very specific emotional problems based on which sex a single parent is. See answer ..6 for regarding legal status.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Homosexuality is not a social "Norm". Less than 1.5% of the population is gay. Since when does a society adapt to fit this small a fraction of it's population. Homosexuality is still nothing but a fringe group with a large voice, encouraged by our liberal media and hollywood.

2 kudos for giving me another forum to post this

Posted by Paul on Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 6:15 PM

 

The best way to stop your child from being gay. Is to teach them (like any undesired behavior) that is is wrong. You would teach them that smoking is wrong wouldn't you?

Hoomosexuality is a LEARNED behavior. Medically, a small percentage of people are predisposed to "be gay". NOT BORN, but predisposed with a tendency. But then again, some people who are predisposed to be obese do not become obese, because they choose to live a healthier lifestyle. Again,  leared behaviors. You can have a big mac or you can CHOOSE to have a salad. 

To me, homosexuality is accetable only because we have allowed it to be. Just as some parents allow thier kids to grow up to be grow up to be tramps. Some parents "allow" thier children to become gay. Through neglect, indifference or liberal views it is allowed as it is a learned behavior.

 

Yes, I can tell from all of your acidulous dialogue, that you must be a republican.

I too, belive two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wish too.

While we are at eliminiating laws that protect the moral fiber of our society, maybe we should make screwing sheep legal? Would that be ok? A consenting adult and his/her sheep. I don't see why marriage has to be limited to couples either. We should allow a man to marry 10 women if he wants to. If a woman wants 6 or 7 husbands we should allow that by law too. Well, and if they want to adopt a child, it takes a village right? If two mothers are jsut as good as a mom and a dad, a mother and 7 fathers should be much better. Don't you agree?

As far as church and religion go... Who needs it! My instinct and my gay friends will all let me know what is right and wrong. And when I vote, I will vote for people who want to eliminiate all these troublesome laws.

Whose idea was it not to kill or steal anyway? What kind of nonsense is that? Dammit! The people should make the laws. If the magority agree, then it should be a law. Oh wait a second....That wont work, they dont know what they are doing!

Hey, and if I need a new tv, and that guy has 3... why shouldn't he have to give me one? If he doesn't I'll just steal it (leagally). What's the worse that can happen after the government takes my guns away, then takes away my property, then taxes the crap out of the rest and voids all the other laws that protect me and my family?

Paul, I would like to also thank you for replying to this blog. I have seen the err in my ways and I am sure that many other people have as well now.
Thank you!

 

This is for you Paul
 

The property that is hurt is not property at all. It is our societies children. Children who are being desensitized to homosexuality. They are being taught by liberals and hollywood who belive that somehow, a sexual fetish is "normal" and should be protected by law.

Like I said, How about me and my 5 wives try to adopt a child? Then we and other "like minded" paligamists can force feed OUR way of life to you child. We are, after all concenting adults.

Now, as it appears that you have run out of "real" amunition. I would appreciate if you let other gay libs have a chance.

 

Doesn't have to we can brainwash it with tv and liberal education systems.
 

you may need to go back to school Paul. You dont read very well.

What I said was, that it desensitizes people to the point where abhorant behavoir seems normal.

You must really be paranoid also. To belive that there is some "evil" plan to take over the planet and turn it into some sort of big republican's only club". Really? Do you think that that could really happen. OMG, I better get my guns back! 

 

Ok Colbert........get a new word.
 

great insight. that is definetly a view point i did not consider before. slippery slope aspect always has to be considered. keep it going capt!!
 

Posting this for a friend!

 

"Yours is a subculture. Not everyone defines their reality based upon such a narrow code of morals as you do. Not everyone tries to decide who has a right to marry and who doesn't.
National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL)did a study of nearly 19,000 people in Britain. The survey examined a cross section of people throughout the country, and looked at their sexual attitudes and behaviour... in 2000 and found the number of people with same sex partners to be around 2.6%
But you're right... I tried to find the stats on gay marriage and I haven't yet. But to say that they don't exist for the sake of the current legal status of such unions is a bit misleading. What you need are objective studies conducted about the stability of same sex relationships and existing gay marriages.
I don't get why you say that that a gay relationship doesn't deserve the same legal protections as those hetero? People who invest a lifetime in a relationship should be afforded certain rights and previledges.... such as insurance, co mortgages... all the things that people have to deal with when combining financial and legal status with another person...creating a commitment.
To say that such relationship don't work... you still have nothing to base this on...by your own admission such stats are missing.
As for the spiritual aspect... the basis for all this... its one set of religious interpretations set against another... but who are they determine who may not stand before their concept of a god and to make a spiritual commitment to that other person?
It goes back to other people trying to determine what your spiritual beliefs are for you.
And it is a basic violation to other people's right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... our fundamental freedoms."
- David

 

"They have proved that gays in this country do not understand nor respect the sancitity of this holy union."
Do heterosexuals understand the sanctity of this holy union? Have you ever met a hetero couple that got divorced and put there kids in the middle of an ugly battle and actually used their children as barganing chips? Me neither. That's because we heterosexuals are perfect in everyway. It is our sexual orientation that makes us perfect. Because my dick has never been in a another man's hairy stinky asshose makes me perfect. And it is through this reason and only this reason that makes us perfect least any man should boast. I think it was a heterosexual that started the porn industry and thank god for that. If a gay person started the porn industry imagine what kind of smut would be in my Hustler magazine. Is George Bush gay? HELL NO!!! And thank god. Imagine what kind of trouble Dubya would get us into if he were gay! He would not only cut funding for our troops he'd probably have our troops running into battle wearing nothing but a g-string or a kevlar bustier! Hitler was a heterosexual and probably one of our greatest heterosexuals. Rush Limbaugh is a heterosexual and he takes viagra so he can proclaim his heterosexuality for hours on end. Brittany Spears is a hetero AND she has reproduced! What a great American Hetero Christian she is! Once again I will shout from the mountain tops that heterosexauls are perfect and it is our sexuality that makes us perfect!!!!! Oh wait...gotta run....Ellen just came on TV!
 

Another typical lib...

You can't post anything of substance so you resort to sarcasm and insult.

 

if you say Gays are bad because they are gay,
why can't i say Hetero-sexuals are great because they are hetero-sexual. Is that so insulting?
Why does your logic work when it comes out of your mouth but when the same logic is used elsewhere it suddenly becomes a falicy?
 

"You can't post anything of substance..."

that never stopped you from posting!
 

I am not a lib and there is nothing typical about me.
I resort to sarcasm and insult because truth, fact and reason don't seem to work with you.
Why are you so afraid of non-hetero people?
judge not lest ye be judged!!!!

It's ok shayne, Jesus loves you and so do I. Just not in a gay way.
 

Where did you read that I was afriad of "non-heteros". Where did you see in my writing that I ever claimed to be judging people. I mearly am pointing out the fact that it does not work and actually leads to more legal and societal woes.

I never said that I had any problem at all with gays nor thier lifestyle per se. I am opposed to teaching MY children that is it as acceptable as a hetero lifestyle. I do not think it is. It is about as acceptable to me as S&M, voyerism, or nudism. None of which are particularly offensive to me, I just think it all belongs in the bedroom, not in the public eye and least of all our schools. 

Oh, and I am not christian, so your "sarcasm" is misplaced there as well. I am sure Jesus does not love me, not even in a gay way. I do however, have a moral compass. Something that too many of our citizens seem to be lacking today.

My problem is with laws that give equal standing for gays to adopt and care for children. It is my moral belief, that marriage is between a man and a woman and that parenting is best when there is one of each sex represented. And it is NOT because I fear that children of homosexuals will grow up gay. My fear is that they will grow up emotionally unbalanced; that they will engage in drug use, violence, promiscuity, and other harmful behavior and crime that, statistics prove is a result of an absent parent of either sex.

You notice I didn't make mention of civil unions. Why you ask? Because I like to see people like you accuse me of being something I am not. I am not homophobic in the least and think civil unions are the best answer for the needs of the gay community. Giving them legal status and rights similar to those of married men and women without giving them equal status as parents.  

You people should learn to read before going off half cocked and sounding like all the rest of the gay marriage supporters. If someone does not agree with your view, we are labeled as homophobes and religious zealots. Niether of which can describe me.

And YES, my friend...You are typical.

 

Typical in what way? You don't even know me.

ok, you are not homophobic. You just have poor deductive reasoning skills.

you said:" The lesbian couple who sparked the nations latest debate on gay marriage have themselves "proved" that gay marriage is NOT an institution (see article below). At the heart of the issue is the child. Yet another child of an irresponsible parent, emotionally scarred, not only by gay marriage but now "gay divorce". They have proved that gays in this country do not understand nor respect the sancitity of this holy union. By it's very nature a gay marriage is destined to fail."

The "proof" you offer that gay marraige doesn't work is one lesbian couple who got married and then got divorced. By getting divorced, this couple has "proved" that gays in this country do not respect the sanctity of holy union etc. Now, lets use YOUR logic and look at a hetero relationship. If one and only one hetero couple gets married and then gets divorced this "proves" that hetero-sexuals do not understand nor respect the sancitity of this holy union. By it's very nature hetero marriage is destined to fail.

Well, you are right. Here are some facts:
Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Non-denominational 34% divorced
Baptists 29% divorced
Mainline Protestants 25% divorced
Mormons 24% divorced
Catholics 21% divorced
Lutherans 21% divorced

Doesn't this "prove" that hetero-sexuals do not respect the sanctity of holy union? By your logic yes. But by any logic it also proves that those who get divorced are all LIARS!!!! Every one who gets married makes a vow. A life-long vow. Everyone who gets divorced breaks their vow or promise and becomes a fucking liar.

You said: "My fear is that they (adopted children of gay parents) will grow up emotionally unbalanced; that they will engage in drug use, violence, promiscuity, and other harmful behavior and crime that, statistics prove is a result of an absent parent of either sex."

According to your statistics, if one parent is missing the child has an increased chance of doing drugs, beating their wife, having sex with everyone and other harmful behavior. So you must therefore be against divorce. Divorce is one of the main things that causes a child to be raised in a situation where one parent is missing. But you don't say divorce is bad, you say gay marraige is bad. Last time I checked a gay marraige involves two people. In a gay marraige two people would raise a child thus preventing that child to grow up to engage in in drug use, violence, promiscuity etc.

So, here you blame one group of people for a problem that is not caused by them. Is that how all Republicans think? Is that why we captured Saddam Husein for flying airplanes into the WTC? Next thing you know you'll be blaming gays for 9-11. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from but there are huge fallacies in your logic. Your premise does not support your conclusion. You are either confused or purposefully convoluting the truth in order to support your baseless claims.

I don't care what religion you aren't, Jesus still loves you!
 

I actualy answer most of these in some of my other replies.

I do oppose divorce. It is just as bad for children as gay marriage/divorce. If you read my replies to belladonna, you will see that I also found gay divorce rates as well. Surprise, they are significantly higher.

I am not opposed to gays. I am opposed to a minority group of less than 2% of the population changing existing laws. If they made up even 10% of the population thier voice should be heard. Why do we waste our time debating an issue that so few Americans will personally be affected by. Gays adopt, they have children and they break up, and they will continue to do so regardless of redefining marriage. The only thing gay marriage does that civil unions will not is ensuring yet another law is open to broad interpretations.

I would ask you the same question...
If all things were equal between a gay couple and a hetero couple. Emotional support, financial ability, education, ect, ect... Who would you choose to adopt your child? Would you not choose the balance of having two gender role models for the child?

 

On the contrary Laura, I do not think it is ok for married couples to divorce and show disregard for the institution of marriage. This too, shows how little value we as a society have placed marriage and traditional family morals.

I also agree that there are many other harmful environments that children can and are raised in everyday. This includes victims of divorced heteros, abusive parents, and parents that neglect thier children. Children of divorced and single parents also suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Therefore, we do not give them the same legal standing to adopt. They can and do adopt, but married couples get preferred standing. I would agree, and have, that children raised by homosexuals (and singles) can find a better situation and indeed, thrive in this type of family unit. However, it should be allowed only when there is not a married couple available or willing to adopt.

My main arguement is not of the homosexual lifestyle, or even that they make "bad" parents. My point all along is that a man-woman couple is better suited for parenting and should be given preference in adoption. Studies show that children need rolemodels of both genders and this is done with our current definition of marriage- "between a man and a woman".  

As a whole, and as a society we have an obligation to see that children that need homes go the the best available first. If we truly belive that we must decide these issues based on what is in the best interest of the child, then we must admit that gay parents should not be the first option when there is an available "traditional" family.

 

Swiped from USA today article:
Some mental health experts believe that it's not a parent's sexual orientation, or even nasty peers, but growing up with two parents of the same sex, that may pose the most potential damage for these kids. Research shows that women and men often parent differently, and each can contribute positive qualities to a youngster's upbringing. Children also may relate to moms and dads differently.

"Gender plays a large role. ... We may not think these (gender) differences are politically correct but, by God, they're developmentally correct," argues Yale University child psychiatrist Kyle Pruett.

Example: Parents are less ambivalent about their own authority when disciplining a child of the same sex, so dads stand up best to boys, mothers to their daughters. It's easier for children to challenge a parent of the opposite sex. Of course, heterosexual divorced or single parents whose kids lack exposure to the other parent face similar potential problems.

 

And Speaking of single parents (and divorced parents). I found this interesting. Apparently, there are some studies relating to gay divorce in Sweeden:

 

A new study published by the Institute For Marriage And Public Policy (IMAPP) in May, 2004, sheds light on the high incidence of legal "divorce" among gays who entered into a registered same-sex partnership in Sweden.

The IMAPP report surveys the results of a study published by Gunnar Andersson, earlier this year entitled "Divorce-Risk Patterns In Same-Sex 'Marriages' In Norway And Sweden."

The IMAPP report notes that in Sweden, between 1995 and 2002, there were 1,526 gay partnerships contracted, compared to 280,000 for heterosexual couples. Five out of 1,000 new couples in Sweden are same-sex. Sixty-two percent of those are male same-sex unions.

The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

According to IMAPP: "Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."

 

 

Thay can be parents Laura. They should not be able to adopt children with the same legal standing as heteros.

Also, keep in mind, that when we change laws we set precedent. The precedent we will set regards the sexual nature of marriage. Once we disregard this, we open marriage up to other sexual natures. Thus, the theory regarding pedophiles and other "sexual minority" groups.

Would it be ok for a paligamist to adopt? Or a nudist. How about someone into beastiality?

I am sure that some of them, in spite of thier sexual preference, would make fine parents. But do we let them have the same legal standing as the majority?

 

I read it all sir, I read it all. Bravo Captain, Bravo !
 

I read it all sir, I read it all. Bravo Captain, Bravo
 

How in the world do I sound hateful toward homosexuals. Because I dont think they should marry, I must therefore hate them?

I am not offended by homosexuality. I am offended that a group that is no more than 2% of the population is trying to change existing lawys that define what marriage is. I like lesbians as much as the next guy. I am no prude! I have several homosexual and bisexual friends. I love them dearly. I do not judge them based on thier sexual preference nor choice of lifestyle. What people to BEHIND CLOSED DOORS is none of my concern. As I have stated before, it becomes my concern when thier legal status is considered.

Using your example, You ARE married and have a healthy relationship. You would be concidered for adoption before a gay couple or a single parent. Not to say that they cannot adopt, but that your household would be better suited for a child by virtue of gender roles available. Your "lover" is nothing more than a sex toy, are they not? Would you introduce your child to her as your "third wheel" or would you keep that part of your sex life behind closed doors? How about your husband...does he allow another man in the bedroom? I see...its ok for you to be bi, but many times there is a double standard. What kind of message does that send to a child?

I have said about 5 times already that all fitting people should be alowed to adopt. I have never stated that they should not be allowed. What I have stated is that they should not have a preference. This is far from exclusion. Our government is not making laws to exclude. The laws are already on the books that state what marriage is. Gays are trying to change the laws to INCLUDE. Once this is done will will be force to "include" other types of groups (like your dog lover), don't you get it? Do you want your child to be adopted by one of these people?

I ask this one question...If you had to give your own child up for adoption and all things being equal, who would you rather have adopt: A married couple or a couple of gay men?

I would choose the maried couple.

However if there were not a hetero couple and my choice was a single parent vs a gay couple I would choose the gay couple...See where I am going with this?

 

People who could provide and teach love, acceptance, emotional support, kindness, and understanding....among other things

These all being equal...who would you choose?
I would choose the married hetero couple due to the balance of gender. No doubt, if I thought the gay couple would be more loving, I would choose them. But ALL things being equal who would you choose?

And c'mon.....people who are against gay marriage are ALWAYS trying to say that "If we allow gays to marry, what's next??!!  Dogs, trees, little kids??!!"  You know as well as I do that people cannot be married unless those two people consist of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.  You cannot consent to marriage if you are an animal , a plant, or a child--thus, that is not even a relevant argument against gay marriage.

This is exactly what can happen if we redifine what marriage is. It is between a man and a woman. Aready in Denmark (where gay marriage is legal) and here in the United States, there are political groups who advocate that the lega age for mariage should be lowered. When we start to redefine laws, we open them up to even further interpretation.

Civil unions are the only choice. Giving gays the same financial benefits that married couples enjoy yet not changing legal definition of marriage. Am intitution that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and is now at risk because a <2% minority want to change it. How is this right?

I can't change your opinion? Why? Are you too close minded. Too "policically correct"? Afraid of what your friends may think? My gay and bi friends know my views and they do not think any less of me for it. However, I would thank you for sharing your view and posting in my blog. It is our discussions that affect change. Some good, some bad, all required to maintain balance.

 

hetro or homo it is hard for a relaionship work please check out my blog'
 

I salute you for this blog. I do NOT salute those who feel in important to insult you in their comments, yet remain on your friends list. I agree with this blog, and hope to hear more from you on this, and many other moral subjects.
 

who insulted me and is still on my list? i know there were a few libtards here but I don't think any are on my list.

That paul is a retard is you are talking about him and not on my list lol.  

 

My feelings on this are torn because I was raised by a gay and the homosexual community (because they all "stick together " so to speak).  I do support gay marriage because it is none of my business.  However with that being said, when it comes to gays adopting I am so torn on this issue.  Yes, my dad was a loving parent.  But I don't think people realize the confusion it has left me with.  Not to mention my brothers have had the worst time understanding being a man, and having a loving relationship with a woman.  After what I have been though, I am now a hardcore believer in kids having parents that are married.  KIDS NEED A MOM AND A DAD!  Not 2 Dad's or 2 Moms.  And if they are a single parent, dragging a child around in all of your many different relationships is destructive to the child.

This is where I disagree with you.  There are so many kids that sit in foster homes because nobody will take them.  So if a gay couple is willing to give them a loving home, then we should let them.  However, it does bother me to see gays produce their own children by in-vitro or however.  Why intentionally put a child though that confusion?  With adopted kids they are so desperate for anyone to love them,  they would  be more than happy going to a gay couple.  They want to be loved and want out of the fostercare system.

"Homosexuality is a selfish way of life. It is more about sexual promiscuity, deviancy, fetishism, and self satisfaction than it is about true love and companionship. The type of love found between a man and a woman."   I believe that it is true that it can be selfish.  Homosexualtity is selfish when you drag underage children through your several different relationships.  It is also selfish when you marry someone of the opposite sex, produce kids, and then bail out to seek your desires of a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex.  But I don't find it to be selfish if you are not dragging kids around with you.   Though I  have witnessed gays swapping sex partners every other week, but I have also seen plenty of gay couples that truly love each other too.  I think my Dad's relationship is true love, and it's not just about the sex.  At least I would like to think it isn't about the sex.  Ughh, that is a weird thought.

Anyways, have a good night :)

 

Thank you so much for posting Danielle.
I am very glad to have your first hand opinion and experience and I think your views are well grounded and obviously well thought out and experienced.

As I have stated several times in this blog, I too think that stable, loving gay couples should be able to adopt. Who can deny that there are children that would be much better off in this envronment than in foster care or with an abusive family? This is why civil unions work better. It preserves the sanctimony of marriage, retains the preferred status of  "mother/father" adoptions and gives gays the same financial and  "civil" benefits of marriage. In fact, it is my belief that legislating civil unions would help society be more accepting and tolerant of those who choose this lifestyle. That civil unions will serve to bring gays into the mainstream whereas eliminating some of the promiscuity and instability that is sometimes caused by the need to hide relationships.

Your particular experience actually confirms what many studies have already shown. That children of gays don't nessesarily end up homosexual themselves. Rather their childhood can be emotionally difficult due to the lack of male and female role models. Not to mention the difficulties placed on them by thier peers and society.