Why "protecting marriage" is retarded

[Josh_LA]

Looking back through your commentary in this thread, I'd say you're the fucking bigot. Judgmental, stupid, and obnoxious, pretty much sums you up. Have a nice day.

I'm a bigot and damn proud of it, at least I admit it!

 

[Josh_LA]

Too rich Josh!

You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia? Maybe there is something to this quote:

Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[Homosexuals] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [homosexuals] have an enormous amount to teach this nation."

Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...

Fags don't hold sacred seeds, or any seeds. What's wrong with eugenics? And yes I'm calling you a bigot, I guess you have nothing to say about it.

 

[Josh_LA]

Too rich Josh!

Nope, more social engineering/NWO Eugenics...

You have not yet explained what's wrong with eugenics (eugenics kills off slaves, not create them), what we should do to gays and what threat is destroying the society before Kinsey done to you (or why it should be what it was).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You guys might like this article http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html about gay adoption.

 

[SeanEdwards]

You guys might like this article http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html about gay adoption.

Interesting article. While I don't think I agree with James Dobson on much, I think he was exactly correct when he states in this article:

"The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl."

That's really all that needs to be said on the subject of gay parenting. It's irrefutable. Biology does matter. We're a species that has male and female members, and those members are not interchangeable or irrelevant. Both are equally important and necessary for reproduction. And because of that fact, both genders are important for providing role-models of a viable reproductive social organization for children.

Edit:

Furthermore, the objections to this concept seem to primarily revolve around homosexuals demanding equal treatment for themselves. Asserting their equal right to heterosexuals to be parents. The implication being that to deny homosexuals an equal right to be parents, is somehow a slight or insult towards the homosexual individual. To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.

But that completely misses the point. This is not about the rights of adults to be parents, it's about the right of children to have parents. Every human being starts existence out of a genetic union of a man and woman. This societal move towards denying that reality, and turning parenthood into some fundamental right of every adult regardless of their suitability or ability to be a parent, is like trying to legislate fantasy.

It reminds me of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

 

[Josh_LA]

Interesting article. While I don't think I agree with James Dobson on much, I think he was exactly correct when he states in this article:



That's really all that needs to be said on the subject of gay parenting. It's irrefutable. Biology does matter. We're a species that has male and female members, and those members are not interchangeable or irrelevant. Both are equally important and necessary for reproduction. And because of that fact, both genders are important for providing role-models of a viable reproductive social organization for children.

Edit:

Furthermore, the objections to this concept seem to primarily revolve around homosexuals demanding equal treatment for themselves. Asserting their equal right to heterosexuals to be parents. The implication being that to deny homosexuals an equal right to be parents, is somehow a slight or insult towards the homosexual individual. To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.

But that completely misses the point. This is not about the rights of adults to be parents, it's about the right of children to have parents. Every human being starts existence out of a genetic union of a man and woman. This societal move towards denying that reality, and turning parenthood into some fundamental right of every adult regardless of their suitability or ability to be a parent, is like trying to legislate fantasy.

It reminds me of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

I've NOT yet heard somebody tell me (no matter how pro-gay they are) that gay parents are equally as good as straight parents. We already know that, so let's bar gays from adopting children and leave these children without parents, sure, you can hunt them down, then what? Throw them in prison? Fine them? What if they're dead or drug addicts?

Adoption certainly is another issue than marriage, but since when have we cared more about children then ourselves? If you care so much about protecting children from gay parents, NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU FROM ADOPTING THEM YOURSELF, IF YOU DON'T DO IT, SHUT UP.

 

[Josh_LA]

. To oppose the concept of gay parenting is thus cast as blatant anti-homosexual bigotry.

Call it bigotry or tolerance or love, whatever, it is what it is. There's nothing wrong with saying gays shouldn't be parents, JUST SAY IT. But the issue is not only not about adoption, but like I said earlier, nobody's every asked a child whether they get to chose their parents anyway. I'm not against banning gays from being parents, but I'm not for leaving children with no parents either. So if we had an abundance of straight parents adopting children and we'd still give gays equal priority, maybe I'll care a little, until then, ....enough.

You have a good time saying how bad or wrong it is to be single parents as if we don't know, as if the cases chose single parents over double parents. You say what's wrong with gay parents as if the alternative was a hundred couples waiting and they only get it because of affirmative action.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I've NOT yet heard somebody tell me (no matter how pro-gay they are) that gay parents are equally as good as straight parents.

Well that's because you simply aren't listening.

Here's a quote from the article posted by heavenlyboy34:

"We're not moms, we're not heterosexual. We're not biological parents," Rob Calhoun said. But "we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents."

"Love makes a family, not biology or gender," he added.

And this is not a unique, aberrant attitude. This is straight out of the homosexual agenda playbook. These activists have the goal of knocking the traditional family structure off its pedastal, and replacing it with whatever weird family experiments that individuals can conceive of, without regard to the impact these experiments may have on the children subjected to them.

And I'll say that they may be right. Maybe the traditional man/woman arrangement for raising families is defunct. But the homosexual activists have not yet proved that fact. They've simply rested their case on their supposed equal right to be parents, and left it at that. The obvious defense of the traditional family is that it has stood the test of time. Gay families have not stood that test of time. Their aim is a grand social experiment in changing the nature of families. A similar experiment has been under way for the past 40 years or so with single-mother families and that experiment has been disastrous for two generations of children who don't have fathers. Do we really need more of this crap? I don't think so.

 

[Josh_LA]

Well that's because you simply aren't listening.

Here's a quote from the article posted by heavenlyboy34:



And this is not a unique, aberrant attitude. This is straight out of the homosexual agenda playbook. These activists have the goal of knocking the traditional family structure off its pedastal, and replacing it with whatever weird family experiments that individuals can conceive of, without regard to the impact these experiments may have on the children subjected to them.

And I'll say that they may be right. Maybe the traditional man/woman arrangement for raising families is defunct. But the homosexual activists have not yet proved that fact. They've simply rested their case on their supposed equal right to be parents, and left it at that. The obvious defense of the traditional family is that it has stood the test of time. Gay families have not stood that test of time. Their aim is a grand social experiment in changing the nature of families. A similar experiment has been under way for the past 40 years or so with single-mother families and that experiment has been disastrous for two generations of children who don't have fathers. Do we really need more of this crap? I don't think so.

Gay are entitled to their opinions, but we don't need to agree with it. What one person says is NOT representative of all gays. And certainly it's oversimplified to say that there's an agenda playbook, much like a conspiracy plan.

Gay families have indeed not stood the test of time, nor have American families, nor have interracial families, nor have divorces. You have to be retarded to think that people will turn gay or see gays as equal just because they're given equal rights, as if people see blacks as people just because blacks are protected under the law.

Do we need more of this crap? No we don't, we don't need blacks to be treated like people either, what did we lose when we chained blacks as slaves and kept them separate but equal?

I'm not equating blacks to gays, I am saying gays are gays, blacks are blacks, they don't become what they are not by legal mandate, nor does society have to accept them if we simply chose not to. Blacks are not safe and free today because slavery and discrimination is illegal, they are safe because white men are nice, if white men (being the majority in numbers they are) decided to lynch blacks for fun, there's nothing that can be done, not even with the law (punishment would be too late).

Social norms DO change, and it's not always a bad thing. You don't prevent changes by playing semantics or complaining about wrongs, you create change by promoting what's good, and compete with what is bad. If gay couples are bad, LET'S SEE SOME MORE STRAIGHT MARRIAGES, STRAIGHT ADOPTS, STRAIGHT COUPLES STAYING TOGETHER, let's see some "straight power" make gays irrelevant and negligible, but they are NOT, so until then,... enough!

 

[dannno]

I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..

Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?

 

[SeanEdwards]

I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..

Yes, of course I recognize that fact. Some straight parents have no business raising children.

Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?

My concern basically boils down to standing in family court matters. I do not agree that homosexual families are equally suitable for raising children, and I do not want the courts to treat such unions as if they are equal. At the same time, I'm not interested in having the state take children away from their gay parent(s). I just don't want society moving down a path of sanctioning these arrangements, just as I'm opposed to society sanctioning single-mother families. These are "broken" family environments, in my opinion. And while such situations are inevitable, that doesn't mean they should be desirable and celebrated.

 

[Josh_LA]

I don't get what SeanEdwards point is. I mean, I agree with him that a mother and father are generally optimal for parental arrangements, but certainly he has to concede that SOME gay parents are better than SOME straight parents.. I mean there are some really bad straight parents out there..

Anyway, I see no problem with giving straight couples first priority, but as the article states there are 65,000 kids in custody of gay parents.. where would they be otherwise? Can you say "hard knock life" ?

He's saying he prefers straight parents over gay parents and two parents over single parents, as if anybody does not. He doesn't say whether he's willing to do something about it, but points out the obvious wrongs like there's better choices.

 

[Josh_LA]

Yes, of course I recognize that fact. Some straight parents have no business raising children.

That's exactly why it's unfair to prejudge couples based on their orientation when many straight parents have no business raising children, you think we'd give gay priority if more qualified straight couples were available? (how available are you yourself?)

 

[SeanEdwards]

Do we need more of this crap? No we don't, we don't need blacks to be treated like people either, what did we lose when we chained blacks as slaves and kept them separate but equal?

WTF are you talking about?

Is this yet another effort to paint a preference for traditional families as tantamount to racism? Stupid fucking crap.

 

[Josh_LA]

These are "broken" family environments, in my opinion. And while such situations are inevitable, that doesn't mean they should be desirable and celebrated.

Ok, we know what you're NOT for, how about what you ARE for?

What SHOULD we do about these broken families?

Yes, because its inevitable, we should realize it, recognize it, and deal with it. That doesn't mean celebrate it, it means presenting it as last resort or something better than nothing, and appreciating.

Nobody celebrates living in a cardboard box, but giving somebody a cardboard box to live in is better than nothing.

 

[Josh_LA]

WTF are you talking about?

Is this yet another effort to paint a preference for traditional families as tantamount to racism? Stupid fucking crap.

no, there's a difference between common sense and racism.

BUT, we moved away from racism and segragation, and look what we got?

If we move away from traditional family, what would we get?

We don't WANT to move away from traditional family, but some things are inevitable and it's an alternative to much worse situations (division, neglect, individualism, hatred)

You can certainly argue life was better when racism was acceptable, nothing wrong with that.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Nobody celebrates living in a cardboard box, but giving somebody a cardboard box to live in is better than nothing.

I just want the proponents of this crap idea to stop trying to convince me that a cardboard box is a fucking mansion.

"The cardboard box has equal rights!"

 

[lucius]

...yes I'm calling you a bigot, I guess you have nothing to say about it.

What didn't you understand about this?

Too rich Josh!

You are calling me a bigot, because I am not beholden to pedophilia?...

Seriously, buy a vowel...

Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

 

[Josh_LA]

I just want the proponents of this crap idea to stop trying to convince me that a cardboard box is a fucking mansion.

"The cardboard box has equal rights!"

a cardboard box has equal rights as a house, but nobody is calling it a mansion, even IF we call it a mansion, it's still not preferred for those who know what a real mansion is. So why do you care if idiots call a cardbox a mansion when you know they can call it the Playboy Mansion or the White House and you'd still not want to live in it?

 

[Josh_LA]

What didn't you understand about this?

what's wrong with pedophilia? Should it be a thought crime? Should pedophiles have rights as humans? What's your intolerance all about?