Would It Affect You Directly

[vidcc]

posted in the spam room but serious replys only here please.

there has been a lot of debate about whether gays should be allowed the same rights to marry as hetrosexuals and all the legal stuff that goes with it
I am a happily married hetrosexual and if a couple of same sex people want to marry it won't affect my life one bit.
They are not asking for special treatment and are not on a recruitment drive. they just want to be given the SAME rights as every other American.
this is not a post about approval or dissaproval, rather could anyone come up with a valid point as to just how it would be detrimental to YOUR life if same sex marriage was allowed, other than the fact that you don't like it.

[vidcc]

Hmm..no answers yet...i wonder why :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

1. The country will now have millions of new people added to insurance premiums that were never there and were never going to be there. This translates to another excuse why corporations like mine have to downsize, cut pensions for retirees, blah,blah. Corporations will be required to cover these new "spouses".

2. My kids will now have a more profound element of sexuality in their face. Most people in this forum say (with absolutely no proof I might add) that the gay lifestyle is something you are born with. I happen to know through common sense that this is incorrect.
The more an act or behavior is considered normal, the easier it is to act or behave that way. I am in no way saying that a person definitely will choose a gay lifestyle because it is considered normal. I'm saying that it is "easier" to do so.
Environment and culture does not dictate but does influence lifestyle. ;)

If my daughter (I don't really have one) was born with this heterosexual gene or small corpus callosum or whatever mumbo jumbo I've heard on these other threads and sometimes hangs out with girlfriends in high school that are gay and sleeps with some of them, many folks in this forum's explanation would be that she had the bisexual gene or the gay gene all along.

I'd say she was hanging out and tried something different.
In different circumstances she might not have.

Gay marriage turns a keyhole into a doorway.

........and please...I don't want to hear arguments about gay couples raising heterosexual children. I already know........but that gay couples raising children is not the norm......................at all. ;)

[vidcc]

i don't usually say this but on this to anyone as everyone's opinions are as worthy as mine but on this occassion busyman i have to say that is complete rubbish and certainly doesn't give a valid reason as to directly affecting you. If you are so worried about insurance premiums for spouses i suggest you start a campiagn to outlaw ALL marriage. By the way WE have to pay for our insurance even though the supplyer is our place of work, it's not the same deduction for single people as multi-policies.. but wait...it won't be any more expensive on the whole because instead of 2 single policies there will now be one policy for 2 people.
Seems yet again you are taking a blinkered stance on this subject because you object to gay marriage.

[dwightfry]

2. My kids will now have a more profound element of sexuality in their face. Most people in this forum say (with absolutely no proof I might add) that the gay lifestyle is something you are born with. I happen to know through common sense that this is incorrect.
The more an act or behavior is considered normal, the easier it is to act or behave that way. I am in no way saying that a person definitely will choose a gay lifestyle because it is considered normal. I'm saying that it is "easier" to do so.
Environment and culture does not dictate but does influence lifestyle.

But doesn't the fact that it isn't considered normal, and these people face a life of ridicule, pain, and judgement raise a gigantic red flag to the flaws of your commen sense?

The difference between my argument and your argument is that mine is known to be true. Everyone knows that gays face ridicule for there lifestyle and yet they continue with it, but you assume that a tolerant world will cause people to enjoy homosexual relations purely because they can and not because those urges were there before. I am 100% accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, and yet I have absolutly NO urge to try it out myself. Am I not considered proof that your commen sense may be wrong?

And what about the homosexual tendencies of animals? They certainly aren't being influenced by their society. Their actions are based purly on chemicals, hormones, and instinct. How do you explain this?

You don't see all this as proof that there is more involved then a simple decision to be gay?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by vidcc@26 February 2004 - 15:27
They are not asking for special treatment and are not on a recruitment drive. they just want to be given the SAME rights as every other American.
this is not a post about approval or dissaproval, rather could anyone come up with a valid point as to just how it would be detrimental to YOUR life if same sex marriage was allowed, other than the fact that you don't like it.
please stick to the question....how it would be detrimental to your life...not how gays are created (by the way..gays are created in hetrosexual relationships)if you want to debate that start your own post

[dwightfry]

My bad. ;)

Busyman, I would like to debate this with you in PM's. When debating in a open thread it gets messy with so many people posting. PM me if you are interested, if we reach a stalemate, which we probably will, we will just have to agree to disagree, but I would like to here your answers.

[vidcc]

no problems.....i actually enjoy reading both your posts, they are usually well thought out make sense and are written with passion of belief.
My problem with this whoile subject has little to do with approval of gay marriages rather fear of our constitution being used to deny freedoms to the very people it is supposed to protect....if it can be used to repress gay rights then it could be used to repress YOUR rights...quote...a dangerous lock to turn a key in.
take care and good debate

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 13:35
i don't usually say this but on this to anyone as everyone's opinions are as worthy as mine but on this occassion busyman i have to say that is complete rubbish and certainly doesn't give a valid reason as to directly affecting you. If you are so worried about insurance premiums for spouses i suggest you start a campiagn to outlaw ALL marriage. By the way WE have to pay for our insurance even though the supplyer is our place of work, it's not the same deduction for single people as multi-policies.. but wait...it won't be any more expensive on the whole because instead of 2 single policies there will now be one policy for 2 people.
Seems yet again you are taking a blinkered stance on this subject because you object to gay marriage.
How does an employer have 2 single policies if, for instance,

a gay woman works and her life partner or whatever is pregnant (due to a sperm donor) and does not work?

Blinkered stance?

My reasons are very valid my friend. I won't campaign to outlaw marriages. They have been around before you and me and I happen to believe in it.
Notice I did say "excuse" for corporations to downsize. I'm sure the added coverage will not kill them but nevertheless, it is an added expense previously not there.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by dwightfry@27 February 2004 - 13:59

2. My kids will now have a more profound element of sexuality in their face. Most people in this forum say (with absolutely no proof I might add) that the gay lifestyle is something you are born with. I happen to know through common sense that this is incorrect.
The more an act or behavior is considered normal, the easier it is to act or behave that way. I am in no way saying that a person definitely will choose a gay lifestyle because it is considered normal. I'm saying that it is "easier" to do so.
Environment and culture does not dictate but does influence lifestyle.

But doesn't the fact that it isn't considered normal, and these people face a life of ridicule, pain, and judgement raise a gigantic red flag to the flaws of your commen sense?

The difference between my argument and your argument is that mine is known to be true. Everyone knows that gays face ridicule for there lifestyle and yet they continue with it, but you assume that a tolerant world will cause people to enjoy homosexual relations purely because they can and not because those urges were there before. I am 100% accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, and yet I have absolutly NO urge to try it out myself. Am I not considered proof that your commen sense may be wrong?

And what about the homosexual tendencies of animals? They certainly aren't being influenced by their society. Their actions are based purly on chemicals, hormones, and instinct. How do you explain this?

You don't see all this as proof that there is more involved then a simple decision to be gay?
Ahaaaaaa but the more it is accepted as a part of life then it WILL be considered "normal". You answered your own question.

There is now gay kissing, gay sex, and gay themes on TV shows, and a cave-in on gay legal issues (even though sodomy law was bullshit!!). Seems like it is becoming less "ridiculed" day by day.

Alot of people bring up the racial card when talking homosexuality well here's one:

Black are more accepted since segregation was lifted and equal rights were achieved. A white woman would be more likely to consider dating me now than in the 60's.

A tolerant world will "more likely" enjoy a gay lifestyle. Using yourself as proof is not proof in iteself.

There's my common sense.

btw, Sorry man but I've addressed your last part on numerous occasions.
It is a way off-topic but homosexual animals are just fucking. That same dog that fucked his buddy just fucked a bitch :lol: :lol: .

I will say no more on that issue here. ;)

[summerlinda]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 01:27
....rather could anyone come up with a valid point as to just how it would be detrimental to YOUR life if same sex marriage was allowed....
It would surely affect my life, I would have a lot more wedding parties :D



Every, and I mean every single human being should have the same legal rights in the same country, and people who say they dont, like Bush, are nothing but arrogant selfish scornful haughty retards. Ofcourse, you have the right to disagree :)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@27 February 2004 - 10:51
How does an employer have 2 single policies if, for instance,

a gay woman works and her life partner or whatever is pregnant (due to a sperm donor) and does not work?


2 people that had 2 seperate policies before now have one between them..they will choose to go with the one that's best for themselves. It's cheaper for insurance companies to run a family plan than seperate plans.
all your statement does is argue against individual rights.
It's funny you mentioned about race equality....if Bush tried to change the constitution to make interracial marriages illegal there would be uproar and rightly so (and i would be the loudest shouter). Why do you want to deny human rights to someone just because you don't like their way of life?
I don't particularly care for the gay way of sex, but i don't have to see it and they don't do me any harm. what i am trying to get people to see is that human rights are being violated and this is being ignored and even applauded because of a general homophobic viewpoint.

[evildon]

Their would be economic effects both beneficial and detremental..of course same could be said if the level of heterosexual marriages went up....but no one would complain about that....

But as far as a REAL direct impact..no...don't have any gay friends and I dont have kids...so no

as far as choice thats another thread

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 17:09
what i am trying to get people to see is that human rights are being violated and this is being ignored and even applauded because of a general homophobic viewpoint.
Hmmm and I thought you were asking if gay marriages would affect me directly?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman+27 February 2004 - 13:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 27 February 2004 - 13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@27 February 2004 - 17:09
what i am trying to get people to see is that human rights are being violated and this is being ignored and even applauded because of a general homophobic viewpoint.
Hmmm and I thought you were asking if gay marriages would affect me directly? [/b][/quote]
:lol: touche on this post.....no i ment in the whole general debate...we are both heavy posters on this whole issue on several posts

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+27 February 2004 - 18:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 27 February 2004 - 18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@27 February 2004 - 13:31
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@27 February 2004 - 17:09
what i am trying to get people to see is that human rights are being violated and this is being ignored and even applauded because of a general homophobic viewpoint.
Hmmm and I thought you were asking if gay marriages would affect me directly?
:lol: touche on this post.....no i ment in the whole general debate...we are both heavy posters on this whole issue on several posts [/b][/quote]
I gotcha vid ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman+27 February 2004 - 15:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 27 February 2004 - 15:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@27 February 2004 - 18:41

Originally posted by Busyman@27 February 2004 - 13:31
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@27 February 2004 - 17:09
what i am trying to get people to see is that human rights are being violated and this is being ignored and even applauded because of a general homophobic viewpoint.
Hmmm and I thought you were asking if gay marriages would affect me directly?
:lol: touche on this post.....no i ment in the whole general debate...we are both heavy posters on this whole issue on several posts
I gotcha vid ;) [/b][/quote]
ok but would you please answer the question i posed
It&#39;s funny you mentioned about race equality....if Bush tried to change the constitution to make interracial marriages illegal there would be uproar and rightly so (and i would be the loudest shouter). Why do you want to deny human rights to someone just because you don&#39;t like their way of life?

[FlyingDutchman]

My freedom (or freedom to act) ends where it infringes on someone elses freedom (or freedom to act).
I hope and expect others to live by same rule.

I can&#39;t see how any marriage would affect me in an unreasonable way, so let them.
(unless they want to marry my wife :blink: )

Just try to imagine how you would feel when restrained by similar rules when you feel like enforcing rules on others.


EDIT:
BTW, homosexuals CAN marry for several years now in my country.
No-one has been hurt by this &#39;freedom to act&#39;.

[seiya_33]

not at all , i dont know why its a big deal , they should be able to get married if they want.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc
It&#39;s funny you mentioned about race equality....if Bush tried to change the constitution to make interracial marriages illegal there would be uproar and rightly so (and i would be the loudest shouter). Why do you want to deny human rights to someone just because you don&#39;t like their way of life?
I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
I can&#39;t think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn&#39;t have to put the racial card in there.

At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.

[evildon]

most of the same arguments were used to justify other races not being allowed to marry and that got changed... years ago people of different religions were not allowed or had to get special permission to marry in the US alot of the same arguments made now were used then to justify this...our society is gonna fall apart...etc...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@28 February 2004 - 03:43

I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
I can&#39;t think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn&#39;t have to put the racial card in there.

At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.
exactly...give rights...but bush wants to amend it specifically to deny rights which was what my general point has been in the other related subjects. I am not playing a race card at all, sorry you feel i am but it was the best example i could think of where the same situation could possibly be applied to a hetrosexual relationship (how would we like it if it was being done to us so to speak). I also used it because even though it&#39;s very very very unlikely to happen...it&#39;s not impossible (not so long ago a man called hitler walked this earth)
I am not asking anyone to approve of gay marriage and change their own morals. I fully understand your objections and respect them. I also appreciate that for you your religoious beliefs take precident over politics. All this said our president wants to change our constitution to violate human rights to a specific group of Americans and to me that is wrong.


Ps. i am in an interracial marriage, I am white and my wonderful wife is oriental so i feel i am entitled to use the comparison that i chose to use. Please don&#39;t take the comparison as a racist issue :D

[leftism]

Germany legalised gay marriage in 2001. The country is now in crisis.

It is estimated that 85% of the population have now "chosen" to be gay and consequently the number of births is nowhere near enough to keep the population at 2001 levels, let alone increase it.

In a desperate bid to reverse the situation the German government imported thousands of irresistible macho Italian waiters to impregnate the few women who hadnt "chosen" to be lesbians. Unfortunately the Italian waiters also &#39;chose&#39; to be gay within 2 weeks of entering the country.

It is reported that the American Military are now instructing the CIA to infiltrate the governments of Iran and North Korea so they can influence their policies and get gay marriage legalised.

They estimate that the population of these countries could be decimated within 10 years so that American studs can invade and be welcomed by the surviving straight population as impregnating saviours.

The only problem is conditioning the US troops to not &#39;choose&#39; to be gay when they enter these countries. Once this has been achieved we can expect to see an end to terrorism, rogue nations and WMD within 50 years. All without a single bomb being dropped.

:)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by leftism@28 February 2004 - 13:47
lefty above
:lol: :lol:

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

i couldn&#39;t care any less. B)

[evildon]

Originally posted by leftism@28 February 2004 - 21:47
Germany legalised gay marriage in 2001. The country is now in crisis.

It is estimated that 85% of the population have now "chosen" to be gay and consequently the number of births is nowhere near enough to keep the population at 2001 levels, let alone increase it.

In a desperate bid to reverse the situation the German government imported thousands of irresistible macho Italian waiters to impregnate the few women who hadnt "chosen" to be lesbians. Unfortunately the Italian waiters also &#39;chose&#39; to be gay within 2 weeks of entering the country.

It is reported that the American Military are now instructing the CIA to infiltrate the governments of Iran and North Korea so they can influence their policies and get gay marriage legalised.

They estimate that the population of these countries could be decimated within 10 years so that American studs can invade and be welcomed by the surviving straight population as impregnating saviours.

The only problem is conditioning the US troops to not &#39;choose&#39; to be gay when they enter these countries. Once this has been achieved we can expect to see an end to terrorism, rogue nations and WMD within 50 years. All without a single bomb being dropped.

:)
The largest problem to this plan..invitro fertalization...and sperm banks..even lesbians here are being artificially inseminated and chhoseing to have kids...couple that with cloning research that HASN"T been made illegal in most of the european countries...and in that 10 yrs..their populations will once again take off...It just will not work logically and due to answers to the population problem that i have stated it wont or doesnt hafta really impact ANY countries population count..Hell even without this gay thing births have been going down as well as marriage..mostly due to economic reasons and personal choices of having a career over a family..several surveys pointed this out during the last two census takings...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by evildon+1 March 2004 - 20:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evildon @ 1 March 2004 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@28 February 2004 - 21:47
Germany legalised gay marriage in 2001. The country is now in crisis.

It is estimated that 85% of the population have now "chosen" to be gay and consequently the number of births is nowhere near enough to keep the population at 2001 levels, let alone increase it.

In a desperate bid to reverse the situation the German government imported thousands of irresistible macho Italian waiters to impregnate the few women who hadnt "chosen" to be lesbians. Unfortunately the Italian waiters also &#39;chose&#39; to be gay within 2 weeks of entering the country.

It is reported that the American Military are now instructing the CIA to infiltrate the governments of Iran and North Korea so they can influence their policies and get gay marriage legalised.

They estimate that the population of these countries could be decimated within 10 years so that American studs can invade and be welcomed by the surviving straight population as impregnating saviours.

The only problem is conditioning the US troops to not &#39;choose&#39; to be gay when they enter these countries. Once this has been achieved we can expect to see an end to terrorism, rogue nations and WMD within 50 years. All without a single bomb being dropped.

:)
The largest problem to this plan..invitro fertalization...and sperm banks..even lesbians here are being artificially inseminated and chhoseing to have kids...couple that with cloning research that HASN"T been made illegal in most of the european countries...and in that 10 yrs..their populations will once again take off...It just will not work logically and due to answers to the population problem that i have stated it wont or doesnt hafta really impact ANY countries population count..Hell even without this gay thing births have been going down as well as marriage..mostly due to economic reasons and personal choices of having a career over a family..several surveys pointed this out during the last two census takings... [/b][/quote]
Very "unnatural". <_<

[leftism]

Originally posted by evildon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evildon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

Germany legalised gay marriage in 2001. The country is now in crisis.

It is estimated that 85% of the population have now "chosen" to be gay and consequently the number of births is nowhere near enough to keep the population at 2001 levels, let alone increase it.

In a desperate bid to reverse the situation the German government imported thousands of irresistible macho Italian waiters to impregnate the few women who hadnt "chosen" to be lesbians. Unfortunately the Italian waiters also &#39;chose&#39; to be gay within 2 weeks of entering the country.

It is reported that the American Military are now instructing the CIA to infiltrate the governments of Iran and North Korea so they can influence their policies and get gay marriage legalised.

They estimate that the population of these countries could be decimated within 10 years so that American studs can invade and be welcomed by the surviving straight population as impregnating saviours.

The only problem is conditioning the US troops to not &#39;choose&#39; to be gay when they enter these countries. Once this has been achieved we can expect to see an end to terrorism, rogue nations and WMD within 50 years. All without a single bomb being dropped.


The largest problem to this plan..invitro fertalization...and sperm banks..even lesbians here are being artificially inseminated and chhoseing to have kids...couple that with cloning research that HASN"T been made illegal in most of the european countries...and in that 10 yrs..their populations will once again take off...It just will not work logically and due to answers to the population problem that i have stated it wont or doesnt hafta really impact ANY countries population count..Hell even without this gay thing births have been going down as well as marriage..mostly due to economic reasons and personal choices of having a career over a family..several surveys pointed this out during the last two census takings...
[/b][/quote]

First off... I hope you realised I was joking :)

I&#39;d just like to address a couple of points you made though.

IVF is extremely expensive and doesnt have a good success rate.

Human cloning in order to produce a human is illegal in all of Europe afaik. Therapeutic cloning to create stem cells is not. Theres a big difference,

If you look at the countries in Europe where gay marriages have been legalised, there hasnt been a huge rise in the number of gay people and the countries have not suffered because of it.

This is all a big fuss over nothing. The idea that if you allow gay marriage your going to have a nightmare world full of homosexuals who procreate via cloning and IVF just seems a bit silly to me.

imho people should live and let live, as long as gay marriage doesnt cause any harm, and I dont think it does, whats the problem?

[Busyman]

Gotta question.

Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it&#39;s ok to boys or girls"?

If the boy was young, let&#39;s say 7, and he liked a boy would you encourage this "liking"? I&#39;m not saying sexual because he probably isn&#39;t thinking, "I wanna have sex with him".

You know how little boys have little innocent girlfriends.
Would it be the same if he liked boys?

You get the generel idea.

[summerlinda]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 09:00

.......Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it&#39;s ok to boys or girls"? .......

YES

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@1 March 2004 - 23:00
Gotta question.

Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it&#39;s ok to boys or girls"?

If the boy was young, let&#39;s say 7, and he liked a boy would you encourage this "liking"? I&#39;m not saying sexual because he probably isn&#39;t thinking, "I wanna have sex with him".

You know how little boys have little innocent girlfriends.
Would it be the same if he liked boys?

You get the generel idea.
Busyman i don&#39;t think that anyone...even a gay couple would deliberatly encourage a child to grow up to be gay. The question has never arisen in my household, but then apart from the usual "daddy where do babies come from" questions, sex hasn&#39;t come up very often.
I have always been honest with my children but not over graphical. My 16 year old knows all about sex and has done for a long time, i try to dispell myths and try to encourage him to be careful and respectful. I know that some day (it might have already happened) he will have sex and i don&#39;t want him to ruin his life by producing a baby...so i have always been realistic and responsible in my approach. The way i would answer your question is that i wouldn&#39;t encourage my children to be gay but i would teach them that being a bigot is wrong.
I don&#39;t want any of my children to grow up to be gay but if it ever happened i wouldn&#39;t love and support that child any less.
I hope that is a good enough answer for you :) (i still await your respons re my post about bush wanting to change the constitution to deny human rights to a specific group of US citizens)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+2 March 2004 - 13:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 2 March 2004 - 13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@1 March 2004 - 23:00
Gotta question.

Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it&#39;s ok to boys or girls"?

If the boy was young, let&#39;s say 7, and he liked a boy would you encourage this "liking"? I&#39;m not saying sexual because he probably isn&#39;t thinking, "I wanna have sex with him".

You know how little boys have little innocent girlfriends.
Would it be the same if he liked boys?

You get the generel idea.
Busyman i don&#39;t think that anyone...even a gay couple would deliberatly encourage a child to grow up to be gay. The question has never arisen in my household, but then apart from the usual "daddy where do babies come from" questions, sex hasn&#39;t come up very often.
I have always been honest with my children but not over graphical. My 16 year old knows all about sex and has done for a long time, i try to dispell myths and try to encourage him to be careful and respectful. I know that some day (it might have already happened) he will have sex and i don&#39;t want him to ruin his life by producing a baby...so i have always been realistic and responsible in my approach. The way i would answer your question is that i wouldn&#39;t encourage my children to be gay but i would teach them that being a bigot is wrong.
I don&#39;t want any of my children to grow up to be gay but if it ever happened i wouldn&#39;t love and support that child any less.
I hope that is a good enough answer for you :) (i still await your respons re my post about bush wanting to change the constitution to deny human rights to a specific group of US citizens) [/b][/quote]
First what is going on in this forum. This about the 5th time or whatever someone has told me I didn&#39;t answer a question.

edit: removed comments about reading comprehension. vid.........please just please read carefully man. The answer...to...your..questionnnnn....is on the previous page. Please man work with me here. You&#39;ve already responded. Am I on moderation on something? :lol: :lol: .

Second, I never said "encourage", I asked specific questions.

[vidcc]

busyman
so does that mean that you accept that as American citizens, homosexuals should have the same rights as hetrosexuals under the constitution ? because you are doing everything in your power to suggest otherwise.
I have already stated that i understand why you feel it&#39;s wrong but at no point have you stated...(that i have seen..i haven&#39;t read every post on every topic) that despite your views, they should have the same human rights.
If you feel they shouldn&#39;t have them (as i believe you feel because of your posts on the subject) then you are as guilty as Bush is of being a bigot.

ok back to the question that you seem to suggest i didn&#39;t answer because i used the word "encourage" (perhaps you don&#39;t have a very big voculary). Firstly at 7 years old a child is still pretty much sexless in urges even if they know how babies are made so it&#39;s not a really pertinent question to the general debate ( you did point it out as being sexless) Unless a child has a parent that is so biggoted that they teach young children to hate homosexuals then a child of that age would have no comprehension of sexuality differences (even then i believe that they wouldn&#39;t really understand why they should hate)... and liking someone ..well isn&#39;t that called friendship? I have some very good friends that are male and i love them as if they were my own brothers, there is nothing homosexual about that. so lets make the child 16 and coming home and saying he/she "likes" someone of the same sex.
Obviously the answer is hypothetical as is the question.
I cannot see myself telling him it is "wrong" however i would sit down with him and talk about why he feels this way and try to steer him in the right direction...at that age confusion is valid. I can honestly say i don&#39;t wan&#39;t my son to be gay but if he turned out that way i would still be as proud and love him as i do now.
i think you said you don&#39;t have children yet, well i do and one thing they have taught me is that there is a very fine line between dictatorship and good parenting and it is too easy to alienate yourself to a child especially when they start truely thinking for themselves. Understanding and reasoning are the best ways to go because it will avoid confrontation and also avoid a child doing something out of spite...i think nearly all of us rebelled against our parents to some degree.
To summise....if a child came to me thinking he/she might be gay and my reaction is just to tell him/her it is wrong then i am not helping that child. All i have done is make the child feel guilty about something that is going on in his/her head. I haven&#39;t stopped the emotion, rather made the child feel worse. Of course i would try to discourage any attempt to act on those emotions until the child was of an age where he fully understood or at least was legally responsible for his/her own actions, just as i would encourage a child to not risk producing a baby.
the question may have been specific, however life is never that simple.

if you feel that many people are unjustly accusing you of not answering their questions perhaps you should ask yourself why you are accusing people of not answering yours. And could the reason be the same?

[vidcc]

added after reading the edit.
you know i do read your posts fully and i do respect your views :) even if i disagree with them

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@2 March 2004 - 15:54
if you feel that many people are unjustly accusing you of not answering their questions perhaps you should ask yourself why you are accusing people of not answering yours. And could the reason be the same?
Ok that&#39;s it man&#33;&#33;&#33;

I don&#39;t have a very big vocabulary? Ok I&#39;ll buy that even if it is smartassed.

Once again you don&#39;t have reading comprehension.

1.Who the hell said I was accusing anyone of not answering MY questions?
Where did you get that from? I know ....thin air (obviously very thin).

2. You asked me a question and I answered it. You even responded I might add but then.....asked me too ........answer the question? :blink:

3. "Steer him in the right direction"....? So to you being gay is wrong..right?

[vidcc]

Being gay is not wrong even if i don&#39;t like it...the right direction could be ANY direction...there are no hard and fast rules about raising children. i didn&#39;t say one way or the other and i did state that if a son or daughter of mine did turn out to be gay i would be just as proud of them as i would if they turned out to be hetrosexual (which i would prefer)

as to me already having responded to your answer...yes i respond to what you wrote, but i asked again because what you wrote wasn&#39;t a reply to the actual question i asked rather more thoughts on the topic in general....if others are accusing you of not answering questions are they all just not understanding you?

please remember that what you write might not read how you mean it to...we are all at a disadvantage because we can&#39;t tell tone of voice in print and if someone believes you haven&#39;t given an answer perhaps you could re-phrase it for them.
Yes sometimes people don&#39;t have "reading" comprehension, but on the same note some fail to have "writing" comprehension

[vidcc]

extra...

even if i did think being gay is "wrong" i still don&#39;t have the right to deny gay people the same eqaul rights as hetrosexuals

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+2 March 2004 - 13:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 2 March 2004 - 13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> (i still await your respons re my post about bush wanting to change the constitution to deny human rights to a specific group of US citizens) [/b]
and this was my answer

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
[/quote]

Seems pretty clear eh?
You proceeded to ask again.

And you talk about "writing comprehension". <_<

I will not revisit this.

[vidcc]

ok don&#39;t let the doornob hit you where the good lord (not that i believe in him) split you :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@2 March 2004 - 19:29
ok don&#39;t let the doornob hit you where the good lord (not that i believe in him) split you :lol:
Cool........ good no rebuttal?

I figured as much once everything was shown again for you.....but then again......

I figured as much once everything was shown again for you.....but then again......

I figured as much once everything was shown again for you.....but then again......


btw, I think Bush is an idiot in more ways then just him trying to change the Constitution. This is just a cherry on the ice cream.

Are you an atheist?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 15:22
And you talk about "writing comprehension". <_<

I will not revisit this.
i didn&#39;t comprehend this correctly...i thought you ment you wern&#39;t going to visit here again :lol: that&#39;s why no rebuttal.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

It&#39;s funny you mentioned about race equality....if Bush tried to change the constitution to make interracial marriages illegal there would be uproar and rightly so (and i would be the loudest shouter). Why do you want to deny human rights to someone just because you don&#39;t like their way of life?

I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
I can&#39;t think of anything in the Constitution that takes rights away. You didn&#39;t have to put the racial card in there.

At the same time I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either but the Constitution should not take away any rights.[/b][/quote]

Busyman.

If the constitution is not changed to allow gay people to marry then it is denying gay people their rights.

I think this is why your being accused of not answering the question.

On the one hand your saying you dont want gays to be able to marry, but on the other hand your saying that you dont think the constitution should deny people their rights.

Its either one or the other.

1. You think that gay people shouldn&#39;t be able marry, this means you want to "deny gay people their rights"

2. You think that gay people should be able to marry, this means you think the legal system/constitution needs to be changed.

It looks like your trying to have it both ways. Effectively your saying...

"I dont think gay people should be able to marry, but I dont think they should have their rights denied"

You cant have both (no gay marriages + no rights denied)

You have to make a clear cut choice. Which is it?

[vidcc]

leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn&#39;t prevent gay marriage, in fact it is the use of the constitution (freedom, justice and liberty for ALL) that has led to the recent victories for the gay community in the courts. So Bush wants to change it.
However i do get your drift and you are actually putting my question to busyman in the direct way i should have done.
He is in a very tough moral Quagmire (i think that&#39;s how it&#39;s spelt) because of his religious beliefs so i do fully understand his objections..he believes homosexuality is wrong but as you state he also suggests that he believes in human equality.


I am on record as saying i am not keen on the homosexual way of life (well the sex bit at least) but they still have the same rights to equality as everyone else.
my country often tells the world that we are the best because we have freedom and that they should aspire to emulate us...well we should practice what we preach.

[leftism]

leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn&#39;t prevent gay marriage

my bad :)

I was going by Busymans argument that "I doubt there will be an amendment to give gays the right TO marry in the Constitution either".

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc@3 March 2004 - 03:30
leftism....at the moment the constitution doesn&#39;t prevent gay marriage, in fact it is the use of the constitution (freedom, justice and liberty for ALL) that has led to the recent victories for the gay community in the courts. So Bush wants to change it.
However i do get your drift and you are actually putting my question to busyman in the direct way i should have done.
He is in a very tough moral Quagmire (i think that&#39;s how it&#39;s spelt) because of his religious beliefs so i do fully understand his objections..he believes homosexuality is wrong but as you state he also suggests that he believes in human equality.


Summed up very nicely.

You asked direct questions. I gave direct answers. Some of you guys could not have been lawyers.
Your questions were answered but nevertheless you wanted another question answered without asking it. ;)

Also "I will not revisit this" referred to the subject in the post (reading comprehension). Otherwise I would have said I will not revisit here or revisit this thread. I guess I went back on revisiting it once again. ;) :lol:

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Summed up very nicely.

You asked direct questions. I gave direct answers. Some of you guys could not have been lawyers.
Your questions were answered but nevertheless you wanted another question answered without asking it.

Also "I will not revisit this" referred to the subject in the post (reading comprehension). Otherwise I would have said I will not revisit here or revisit this thread. I guess I went back on revisiting it once again[/b]

So does that mean stopping gay marriages is more important to you than not denying gay people their rights?

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman

I believe that the Constitution was supposed to give rights NOT take them away.
.[/quote]

You see, like I said before, your trying to have it both ways but you cant. Thats not what I call a direct answer, its what I call sitting on the fence.

It all depends on your priorities Busyman. Whats more important to you? Stopping gay marriages or making sure the Constitution doesnt take rights away?

btw you definitely havent answered that last one because no ones asked it until now :D

[evildon]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 March 2004 - 07:00
Gotta question.

Would anyone on this forum tell their child that there is nothing wrong with them being gay? Better yet, would you tell them, if you had a boy, "it&#39;s ok to boys or girls"?

If the boy was young, let&#39;s say 7, and he liked a boy would you encourage this "liking"? I&#39;m not saying sexual because he probably isn&#39;t thinking, "I wanna have sex with him".

You know how little boys have little innocent girlfriends.
Would it be the same if he liked boys?

You get the generel idea.


I would be as supportive as i could in whatever sexual preference he/she exhibeted a liking in..I dont think u choose..I KNOW i didnt..at NO time did I sit down and look at a picture of a naked guy and a picture of a naked girl and go.."OK..which one do I want?..I mean the guy is cute..but the girl is hot too....I gotta choose tho..dang..." U see what i am saying? I always liked girls...wasnt a &#39;choice&#39; my body responded the way it was wired to..u could hold a picture of a naked guy up all day long and threaten me with a gun if i didnt get an erection over the guy..but i am sorry to say nothing wuld happen down there...well unless it was brad pitt but that doesnt count..he is really a girl..or is that decapria?..Just jokin..really tho..I hate strawberries..but i didnt choose to hate them..dont break me out..just dont like them...even gays who denied it growing up and dated the opposite sex all say that they always knew that they were lying to themselves...