Prop 8

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Well, therein lies the problem. If the state recognizes gay "marriage", a gay couple could file a lawsuit against the church saying that the church us illegally discriminating against them by refusing to marry them - and, legally, they'd have a valid argument and the state could then end up requiring the church to either perform gay marriages or have it's license to perform them revoked.  quote>

Churches refuse to marry hetrosexual couples all the time.  It's been happening for centuries.  It's been the churches' business, not the government's.

For example:  for years, the Catholic church refused to marry people who had been divorced.  Some couples got around this by having their first marriages annuled.  Others didn't, either because they wouldn't pay the $500 fee or because they didn't want to declare their existing children to be bastards (which they would be if the marriage was annuled).

As convoluted as that is, I don't see how the government would have standing to declare it to be illegal.   It's the church's business to decide how and when to administer sacraments.  (heck, some of them don't even let death get in the way.  but that's another story.)

Another argument in favor of my "civil unions for everyone" idea.  quote>

and what, exactly, is wrong with this idea?    

History shows that churches will use whatever bizarre criteria they want to use to determine if a couple can get married in their church.  That shouldn't be the government's business.

Marriage, meanwhile, whether performed in a church or in a courthouse, is a legal institution.  The law should not discriminate.  If consenting adults want to get married, the rest of us should keep our noses out of their business.

 

I can think of a legitimate exception to that:  marrying a close relative.   That is a danger to the gene pool and I can see how society at large could have a reasonable objection to that.

 

I don't understand the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument.  I've never heard anyone claim that a court house wedding destroys the sanctity of marriage.  

 

[duack 14]

 

 With gay parenting, you can't - psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be), and for those parents to be loving and caring. So, gay parenting is bad for the children - but so is parenting by a couple that's divorced or in a less than healthy marriage.

(Libertarian thinking!).quote>

 

That's not true. There's a thing called IVF that was invented recently that allows couples who cant have a child, whether its because theyre gay or infertile or whatever, to have children from there own genes. So inthis case, One of the parent's genes are taken and placed in a surrogate mother so the child will be related to at least one of their parents. And in a world were the population will start going down soon, everyone should be able to have children.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: yoshikoroyimara

Originally posted by: fukuda

Spanish-speaking gay Buddhist Democrats militantly demanding marriage licenses in California?!?! Faithful to Arms, the Barbarians are at the Gates and the Apocalypse is Nigh!quote>

Omg! We already live in the apocalypse over there then! ohnoesquote>

what does that mean?  Can't Buddhists be Democrat, gay, and spanish-speaking???  Or can't Spanish speakers be gay, Buddhist, and Democrat...or can't Democrats be gay, Buddhist, and spanish-speaking???  Apocalypse...pssshhh...for all I know...it may be the Second Coming...(and then the Apocalypse)...

quote>

 

Oh, please. That's harmless.

The real harm to innocent Americans are Communist Gay Liberal Democratic Hermaphrodites!

[Zelgadis 638]

Canada has a provision in its gay marriage laws that specifically states that no church can be forced to perform gay marriages. (Don't know how such a law would go down in the American system though)

City hall has no choice though. They have to perform marriages to anyone who requests one.

I think that's fair.

ISF

[Lambert14 0]

quote>

[Lambert14 0]

quote>

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

well, IMO, if you can plea "minority rights" everytime the vote doesnt swing your way, that destroys the point of voting at all... quote>

Really? So if Americans went and voted for slavery to become legal again, that'd be ok with you. Yes I didn't think so and clearly not seeing the bigger picture.

quote>

 

I would vote no, but if more people voted yes than no, it would be okay with me, because they won fair and square. Is that not what pure democracy is? Whoever gets the most votes win.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I, personally, am not fond of gay parenting. I don't like it. It's not good for the kids. Gay "marriage", I have no objection to, but them pretending to be parents bothers me.quote>

....

So you'd rather those ABANDONED or abused children languish in a children's home. Because its clearly obvious that's so much better for them on all levels than having the opportunity to be part of a loving family that will actually care for them. Gay parents generally tend to be settled, in a long-term relationship and relatively well-off . They are perfectly capable of looking after most of the child's needs.

I am not saying that gay people have a right to be parents, no-one has the right to be a parent. For some they will decide to have them and most will love and care for them, another section of society has no problem in willingly being promiscuous and not able to deal with the consequences and either abort the child or pawn it off to some children's home or give the child an awful standard of care.

A gay couple have every right to be treated equally when considered for child adoption. While a mother and a father is the best situation we all unfortunately do not live in a rose-tinted fantasy world where that is the case.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

well, IMO, if you can plea "minority rights" everytime the vote doesnt swing your way, that destroys the point of voting at all... quote>

Really? So if Americans went and voted for slavery to become legal again, that'd be ok with you. Yes I didn't think so and clearly not seeing the bigger picture.

quote>

 

I would vote no, but if more people voted yes than no, it would be okay with me, because they won fair and square. Is that not what pure democracy is? Whoever gets the most votes win.

quote>

Pure Democracy is inherently full of problems, that is why the constitution is designed to protect the minority rights. This idea of the majority telling everyone else what to do is just another form of tyranny and a modern dictatorship. It is one of the main problems of communist sstems, where the party tells everyone else what to do. When you ignore the rights of the minority, you effectively destroy what democracy tries to do

[hamsterTK 93]

psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be)quote>

You mean like the ones who grow up in trailers without any water or electricity because mama is addicted to meth and works as a prostitute?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I would vote no, but if more people voted yes than no, it would be okay with me, because they won fair and square. Is that not what pure democracy is? Whoever gets the most votes win.quote>

Really...well that's rather tragic and only leaves me to question your intelligence.

Well lets try another one shall we. The black population become the majority and call for a vote that would strip non-Blacks of their rights to vote, right to hold property and everything you placed on them. You would obviously vote no, but oh dear...the vote passes.

Yet with your logic you would be perfectly happy with that. Logic-failure much??

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be)quote>

You mean like the ones who grow up in trailers without any water or electricity because mama is addicted to meth and works as a prostitute?quote>

Yeah or those 'more suitable' biological parents that inflict child abuse on their children and even go as far as killing them.

I have countless news articles I can add to show just how unbelievably evil some of those 'better' biological parents can be....

....hhmm lets see. Allow a child to remain in an abusive home becuase the only couple that wants the child is gay? Or allow the child to be adopted and let it for the first time in its life benefit from a caring and loving environment......not too sure what to do there...!!

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I would vote no, but if more people voted yes than no, it would be okay with me, because they won fair and square. Is that not what pure democracy is? Whoever gets the most votes win.quote>

Really...well that's rather tragic and only leaves me to question your intelligence.

Well lets try another one shall we. The black population become the majority and call for a vote that would strip non-Blacks of their rights to vote, right to hold property and everything you placed on them. You would obviously vote no, but oh dear...the vote passes.

Yet with your logic you would be perfectly happy with that. Logic-failure much??quote>

 

I would just leave the country then.

If you havn't noticed, ive just been playing devil's advocate from the beginning, because your "OMG Your so stupid haha' comments make me laugh.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I would just leave the country then.

If you havn't noticed, ive just been playing devil's advocate from the beginning, because your "OMG Your so stupid haha' comments make me laugh.quote>

No...I just thought you lacked any coherent train of thought. Then again, I like to think if people have nothing to offer to a conversation bar purposeful antagonisation then they shouldn't bother speaking at all.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I would just leave the country then.

If you havn't noticed, ive just been playing devil's advocate from the beginning, because your "OMG Your so stupid haha' comments make me laugh.quote>

No...I just thought you lacked any coherent train of thought. Then again, I like to think if people have nothing to offer to a conversation bar purposeful antagonisation then they shouldn't bother speaking at all.quote>

Great job proving his point

I literally lol'ed right there

[miguelkuk 109]

I must admit I've been extremely tempted to intervene several times, but have decided not to since people like hamsterTK or belfastuniguy, to name just two, are doing the job pretty well at saying what I would want to say myself.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be)quote>

You mean like the ones who grow up in trailers without any water or electricity because mama is addicted to meth and works as a prostitute?quote>

Yeah or those 'more suitable' biological parents that inflict child abuse on their children and even go as far as killing them.

quote>

 

I agree. But then there's the issue of how the child will feel having gay parents. However being embarresed your entire life because of your gay parents is ten times better than spending your life in an orphanage.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I agree. But then there's the issue of how the child will feel having gay parents. However being embarresed your entire life because of your gay parents is ten times better than spending your life in an orphanage.quote>

That purely a social thing. You have societies where no-one would make you feel embarrassed to have gay parents. Some places are rather tolerant and where the people live in the 21st century where their train of though is not based on archaic misconceptions.

In some places having gay parents may be a cause of embarrassment, but that's not the fault of the parents or child but of wider society. If a child has a chance of being part of a loving home whether it be with a mother/father, mother/mother, father/father or a single parent then all should be treated equally and fairly and the needs of the child ALWAYS put first. In some cases that will mean the heterosexual couple being allowed to adopt and in other the homosexual couple. No-one has stated that one couple should have priority, its should always be about the child and in my experience gay men make rather good parents.

[fukuda 351]

With gay parenting, you can't - psychologically, it's best for kids to grow up in a home with their biological parents (which a gay couple can't be), and for those parents to be loving and caring.quote>

Actually, research has been conducted about that subject. I'll cite mainly the reseacrh report by the canadian government (original can be found here if you want to read about the study and its objectiveness)

there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

[...]

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusionquote>

Well, I know that it's one of the main and most accepted stereotypes after all

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

You mean like the ones who grow up in trailers without any water or electricity because mama is addicted to meth and works as a prostitute?

Yeah or those 'more suitable' biological parents that inflict child abuse on their children and even go as far as killing them.

I have countless news articles I can add to show just how unbelievably evil some of those 'better' biological parents can be....

.quote>

Okay, everyone, stop using the extremes as examples. It's a false set of presumptions, as if gays don't ever abuse children or that hetero parents are all abusive. It's as if I presumed that all Irish are IRA bombers, you would scream pretty loudly. Anyone can be evil to kids, John Wayne Gacy and others like him weren't parents at all and yet, they preferred children. The argument is specious and I'm shocked no one has called anyone on it. It doesn't reflect well on your (group) intellects or your ability to argue your case (not picking solely on you, uniguy).

Fukuda:

The Canadian gov't is hardly unbiased, there's plenty of examples that I'm just not going to go into  concerning their bias toward GBLT issues and against religious people, even against the views of the general public. After all, abortion is legal there even though at least one poll found a solid majority that considered it a violation of basic human rights.

If gays make great parents in general, why are children of gay couples far less likely to be gay themselves?

[belfastuniguy 18]

If gays make great parents in general, why are children of gay couples far less likely to be gay themselves? quote>

Oh..really. Care to share your evidence? Or are you simply speculating?

[fukuda 351]

Fukuda:

The Canadian gov't is hardly unbiased, there's plenty of examples that I'm just not going to go into  concerning their bias toward GBLT issues and against religious people, even against the views of the general public. After all, abortion is legal there even though at least one poll found a solid majority that considered it a violation of basic human rightsquote>

This is not a governmental speech, it is a study made by researchers based on statistics and research work, and as such,  the main part of the document I linked to contains research results and data.

The conclusions that I cited may be biased in some degree, but the results are also in the document, and a proper reading should come before any kind of conclusions.

 

If gays make great parents in general, why are children of gay couples far less likely to be gay themselves? quote>

How is that children of straight couples become gay then? (usually) sons tend to act against what their parents did or believed, sons becoming left-wing when their parents were right-wing, listening to music completely different to what their parents use(d) to listen, with a completely different focus.. that's nothing new...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

 

I can think of a legitimate exception to that:  marrying a close relative.   That is a danger to the gene pool and I can see how society at large could have a reasonable objection to that.

 

 quote>

I have already heard this attacked as archaic, and that in the age of modern birth control one should be able to marry even their own sibling or parent, as defective children need no longer be born to such couples. And they say there is no slippery slope! Just something to consider.

Originally posted by: fukuda

How is that children of straight couples become gay then? (usually) sons tend to act against what their parents did or believed, sons becoming left-wing when their parents were right-wing, listening to music completely different to what their parents use(d) to listen, with a completely different focus.. that's nothing new...quote>

Well, for one thing, gay couples can't produce kids at all, and must appropriate them from other sources. Assuming a 4% homosexuality rate in the general population (as accurate an assessment as one can expect), that would mean 96% of kids are from straight couples overall. Nearly all kids, gay or straight, statistically come from straight parents.

You also describe 'contrary reactions', something any parent has dealt with. Agreed.

The general supposition I made came from 2 sources: One is homosexual friends of mine, and they seemed to agree within a general pattern when this subject was discussed. The other was a woman known to me when I was in high school (mid '80s) who was raised by a lesbian couple. While they tried to force her into a lesbian role, such as giving her a BB gun and toy cars instead of dolls, she felt compelled to embrace a standard hetero femininity and preferred Barbie to GI Joe. This caused much friction within her 'family unit', which likely remained well past the time I lost any contact. She went so far as to present a research assignment (either Sociology or Social Studies class) bolstering the assertion I echoed in my post. This was well before the internet came into widespread use, leading me to one more point:

Good luck finding any unbiased research on this. After viewing roughly 4 dozen webpages, every one of them came from one side or the other. All of the research I could find is tainted, and so I will just let anyone interested do their own research. I did find this short video, but the researcher seems to back off the assertion almost as soon as she makes it:

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

and what, exactly, is wrong with this idea?quote>

The problem is that marriage is a religious thing. The government is thus overstepping its bounds by getting involved in it at all. Let churches and whatnot "marry" people. Have the government "civilly join" people. The former is the religious aspect of the relationship, the latter is the legal aspect of it.

Doesn't practically change much besides the terminology, but it keeps the Christians who worry about the sanctity of marriage being violated if the state marries gay couples happy.

History shows that churches will use whatever bizarre criteria they want to use to determine if a couple can get married in their church.  That shouldn't be the government's business. quote>

It shouldn't be, but just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it won't. There is a huge anti-church movement in my state, and I worry about that going to far.

I don't understand the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument.  I've never heard anyone claim that a court house wedding destroys the sanctity of marriage. quote>

That's a different story since it's still a marriage between a man and a woman. They will still live together, potentially have kids, and have a household and whatnot in a manner not unlike a man and woman married in a church would. You look at any given married couple and you couldn't tell where they got married unless you asked them. After the ceremony, nothing is really different.

But with a gay couple, you can't say that. It's a huge obvious difference that lasts their whole lives, not a small little difference that doesn't even show itself the following day.

The point is that it's not the sanctity of the ceremony that's of concern, it's the sanctity of what it means to "be married".

duack That's not true. There's a thing called IVF that was invented recently that allows couples who cant have a child, whether its because theyre gay or infertile or whatever, to have children from there own genes. So inthis case, One of the parent's genes are taken and placed in a surrogate mother so the child will be related to at least one of their parents. quote>

Okay, fine. They can't have kids normally.

And with a couple of two men, they'll still have to find a woman to carry the fetus.

And in a world were the population will start going down soon, everyone should be able to have children. quote>

Okay:

1) Where do you come about saying that the world's population is going to start dropping soon?

2) If it does, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Lambert14 Actually, all of these studies people quote from were performed by bias institutions such as focus on the family. More then half the marriages in this country are split, most children in school only live with one parent, and many couples that say together shouldnt be allowed to have children because of the cruelty that occurs. My mother is a teacher in an elementary school and I see the horrors of terrible parenting every day. When kids come to school and werent able to do there homework because there parents made them work for them or they had to take care of there brothers and sisters, or there parents had a party and they couldnt sleep, this makes me furious that the state says gays are bad parents, but these straight people are ok.quote>

Okay, first of all, did you see me quoting studies? No. I'm not. I'm using common sense here. For a kid to grow up not having a mother or not having a father... it's not a good thing. Little boys learn how to treat women based on how their father treats their mother. Little girls learn how to treat men based on how their mother treats their father. If a little boy grows up in a household with two gay men, they're not going to properly learn how to treat women.

Now, the same could be said about a little boy whose parents are divorced and lives with his father, or whose mother is dead, but those situations are unavoidable.

belfastuniguy So you'd rather those ABANDONED or abused children languish in a children's home. quote>

No, I'd rather they be adopted by a straight couple.

And the abandoned children problem could be combated by encouraging women to get an abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.

Because its clearly obvious that's so much better for them on all levels than having the opportunity to be part of a loving family that will actually care for them. Gay parents generally tend to be settled, in a long-term relationship and relatively well-off . They are perfectly capable of looking after most of the child's needs. quote>

I never said they weren't capable of being loving and looking after the kids. But that's not the issue. The issue is the lack of there being both a mother and a father. And no, the effeminate one being "mommy" while the butch one is "daddy" doesn't count.

A gay couple have every right to be treated equally when considered for child adoption. While a mother and a father is the best situation we all unfortunately do not live in a rose-tinted fantasy world where that is the case. quote>

And guess what?

I completely agree with you there!

Gay couples absolutely should have the right to adopt kids. I personally don't approve of it, but I'm not the one being adopted or doing the adopting, so it's none of my business.

As I said before, I personally am against gay parenting but I completely support gay couples' right to do it.

If that seems contradictory, let me put it this way:

No, I don't approve of it.

But yes, I believe it should be legal.

For a lot of people the idea of there being a distinction between "I am against it" and "I think it should be illegal" might be a rather strange idea, but there you have it. I think that's the key point of contention here. For all my arguments against gay parenting, I never said it ought to be prohibited. There's a difference.

[Haljackey 17,270]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Look above

quote>

Wow.

Why is prop 8 being brought up now?  Didn't it happen weeks ago?  And why so much feud?  Just sayin

[Simcitymaster13 27]

Nay.Because pretty much all religions ban gay marriage because of their god or gods.

[threeswept 12]

The church influenced the thinking of the voters. quote>

Yes, indeed this is the case. For those living outside CA who got to see all of the commercials and/or literature being handed out about Prop 8, the religious AND conservative right pressed the issue of TEACHING CHILDREN ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS.

This was the main objective. It wasn't about marriage. It was to fool the general population into believing that if Prop 8 failed, it would allow schools to teach little Billy and Sally about gays. 

When gay marriage was allowed, schools weren't out there teaching 7 year olds about homosexual marriage. Nothing had changed.

The mayor of Half Moon Bay even took out an ad in the local paper explaining that Prop 8 was not about teaching homosexuality in school. The pro Prop 8 people even took video of children that attended, WITH PARENT PERMISSION, a Lesbian wedding at SF city hall. The parents of those children were outraged because they didn't consent to the video being shown and they gave permission to their own children. The children were not forced to go - which is exactly what the commercial portrayed. Also, children and parents from other states, including MA, were used to sell the idea about teaching children about homosexuality. It's absurd. And, I'm happy that the Prop was mishandled in a way that leaves open the probability of bringing back to vote. I also believe that churches will be under more scrutiny this time for funding false and incredibly misleading advertisements. 

And, I guess, in the end, it doesn't surprise me that conservative, Puritan groups push misleading agendas and reintrepreting the Bible to fit their needs. The Bible is very explicit about marriage, remarriage and divorce for heterosexuals, for instance. But, the Church lends a blind eye to that. However, they do use the same tactic that's been used for centuries against people to force people to see things 'their' way. Only thing is we're somewhat beyond murder and pilaging and creating holidays (eg: Christmas) to force people into believe.

EDIT: Totally forgot about this article from last week from Newsweek:

Contact: Katherine Barna       FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

at 212-445-4859       Sunday, December 7, 2008

placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'');

COVER: THE RELIGIOUS CASE FOR GAY MARRIAGE

NEWSWEEK POLL SHOWS TWO-THIRDS OF PEOPLE WHO SEE GAY MARRIAGE AS A RELIGIOUS MATTER OPPOSE IT

  

"RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GAY MARRIAGE ARE ROOTED NOT IN THE BIBLE AT ALL"

New York-The latest Newsweek Poll shows growing public support for gay marriage and civil unions, with a number of factors playing a role in swaying people one way or the other.  According to the poll, 62 percent of Americans say religious beliefs play an important role in shaping their views on gay marriage. "According to the survey, two-thirds of those who see marriage as primarily a legal matter support gay marriage. On the other hand, two-thirds of those who see it as mostly a religious matter (or equal parts religious and legal) oppose gay marriage."  Religion Editor Lisa Miller examines this issue in the December 15 cover, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" (on newsstands Monday, December , and writes that "not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to Biblical scrutiny... All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections."  A mature view of scriptural authority requires the ability to move beyond literalism, as common practice changes and evolves over time.  "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition," Miller writes. 

Miller writes that the argument against gay marriage involves the idea that the Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman, and homosexuality is in opposition to Scripture.  To which there are two obvious responses: First, neither the Bible nor Jesus says any such thing. And second, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else's-to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "'Marriage' in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor, cherish each other-in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer-in accordance with God's will." Miller argues that the Bible offers no reason why gays and lesbians should not be married, in both civil and religious terms-and a number of excellent reasons why they should. 

"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future," Miller writes. "The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs."

Also in the cover package, Senior Writer Lorraine Ali tells the story of a custody battle between two women who were joined in a Vermont civil union.  Their relationship failed, one partner decided she was no longer gay and now they're fighting for custody of the daughter they both love.  The case, Miller v. Jenkins, has important implications for gay parents everywhere. 

[belfastuniguy 18]

The general supposition I made came from 2 sources: One is homosexual friends of mine, and they seemed to agree within a general pattern when this subject was discussed. The other was a woman known to me when I was in high school (mid '80s) who was raised by a lesbian couple. While they tried to force her into a lesbian role, such as giving her a BB gun and toy cars instead of dolls, she felt compelled to embrace a standard hetero femininity and preferred Barbie to GI Joe. This caused much friction within her 'family unit', which likely remained well past the time I lost any contact. She went so far as to present a research assignment (either Sociology or Social Studies class) bolstering the assertion I echoed in my post. This was well before the internet came into widespread use, leading me to one more point:quote>

Yeah. well firstly your experience with some of your friends gives you no valid basis to make the assumptions you did. I asked for evidence, you friends aren't evidence. Sorry but a bit of a FAIL there. Opinion is not fact..

As for your lesbian mates forcing their child to be a lesbian....oh please. Clearly they were wholly inappropriate parents and did not deserve to have the child. However you CANNOT FORCE people to be gay, straight, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered or whatever else. Its just happens, some people are born gay, other straight, other bisexual. It not something you can teach or force onto someone.

I never said they weren't capable of being loving and looking after the kids. But that's not the issue. The issue is the lack of there being both a mother and a father. And no, the effeminate one being "mommy" while the butch one is "daddy" doesn't count. quote>

Oh would you look at that, gay stereotyping. Was wondering when we'd get to that. Whether sarcasm or not, really no need for it, unless you enjoy engaging in this topic with pre-pubescent maturity level.

For a lot of people the idea of there being a distinction between "I am against it" and "I think it should be illegal" might be a rather strange idea, but there you have it. I think that's the key point of contention here. For all my arguments against gay parenting, I never said it ought to be prohibited. There's a difference.quote>

Yes I do know what you mean. Same with me with abortion, I don't like it but perfectly respect the right for it being legal and a women's choice.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Yeah. well firstly your experience with some of your friends gives you no valid basis to make the assumptions you did. I asked for evidence, you friends aren't evidence. Sorry but a bit of a FAIL there. Opinion is not fact..

As for your lesbian mates forcing their child to be a lesbian....oh please. Clearly they were wholly inappropriate parents and did not deserve to have the child. However you CANNOT FORCE people to be gay, straight, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered or whatever else. Its just happens, some people are born gay, other straight, other bisexual. It not something you can teach or force onto someone.

quote>

So then I'll toss it back to you... where is your evidence that it is born? The last study I saw said there is no 'gay gene'. There have been several genome research studies coming to the same conclusion, so you're just left with your opinion. Fail, indeed. Fail yourself.

[Mexicanboy13r 12]

Wow.. I see many people take interest on Prop 8. Either against it or not...