How is saying SSM isn’t a proper environment for kids not bigotry? What’s “improper” about it?
But…that’s not even true. Pathetic explanation by your friend, cmosdes.
I don’t think it’s a bigoted idea to consider that the ideal parenting situation is a mother and a father. I grew up in a single-parent household and it did bother me that my friends had two parents and I didn’t.
I do think this point of view will gradually disappear when the first generations of kids raised by openly gay parents come of age, and turn out to be perfectly normal.
So, you don’t think it’s true but you don’t think it’s prejudiced? How does that work?
Look, while I agree with your disdain for this thread, don’t smear people who have mental retardation by comparing them to Freeper die-hards. In fact, try not to use “retarded” as an insult – and definitely don’t accuse someone of bigotry while you’re dissing retards.
:smack:
So was abolishing slavery.
We don’t have any studies to point to that say living in a gay household doesn’t negatively affect children. Not that we should have to, but to the sizeable segment of the population that thinks that children are fragile and should not be exposed to anything more dangerous than a paperclip, I can see how it might be a scary thought.
In the absence of evidence for the safety of a practice, assume it’s unsafe. Stupid, but that’s how many parents operate.
Somebody in another thread said there are no arguments against SSM which are neither irrational nor bigoted. This is one of the irrational arguments.
Er… fight my ignorance here. I thought “retarded” was no longer actually in conventional use. Is that not true?
:smack:
This post brought to you from the Redundancy Department of Redundancy.
No, that’s still bigoted. Firstly, it excludes homosexuals from the definition of “family,” with no justification for doing so. It assumes that allowing homosexuals to be included in the national culture would be destructive to said culture, without providing any basis for said assumption. Most insulting of all, it dismisses the ability of gay parents to raise their own children, comparing being raised by gay parents to being beaten by your parents. Not only is this last attitude grossly prejudicial, it is flat-out ignorant. Every reputable study done on the development of children of same-sex couples has shown that the children experience no negative influence on their intellectual, emotional, or sexual maturity. Which, incidentally, is actually immaterial to the issue of state recognition of gay marriage, as gays can get married without having kids, and more importantly, can have kids without getting married.
So, not only bigoted, but ignorant and poorly argued, to boot.
Exactly. Banning SSM doesn’t do squat to keep gays from having kids or to keep kids out of gay households. It just means that the kids who are living in gay households with their gay parents will have fewer of the legal and financial safeguards that marriage provides for the stability of a family.
(1) That’s cute. instead of proving a point, put it all on the other guy to disprove the negative. Uh huh.
(2) WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN! Yeah, shelter them from any possible contact or information about the world. Keep them in a bubble. Then when they do grow up (as much as you can with all that shielding) they won’t have a damn clue how to run their own lives.
It’s all just bullshit to hide the truth that some people are just spiteful hateful bastards.
Again, it’s not my position, and I pointed out that it was stupid.
Point taken. Still, no matter. It’s the same people who at one time would have felt safe yelling “kill the fags”. They just use different words now.
Put lipstick on a pig, it’s still just a pig.
The difference between my saying it and your saying it:
I said it because I believed, I KNOW, that both elections were stolen. Bush was not legitimately elected either time. He was installed by dirty tricks. He defiled the office with his presence and with his actions. He was not my president, he was not, in my opinion, anyone’s president. He was a man pretending to be president.
You’re saying it because you don’t happen to like or agree with the man who was legitimately chosen by the people.
I’ve disliked almost every president I’ve known in my lifetime, with the exceptions of Ford, Carter, and Clinton. I was around for LBJ and Kennedy, but too young to have an opinion. I absolutely could not stand Nixon and I think he also was pretty skanky.
But they were all elected. Or, in the case of Ford, legally arrived in office. And they were all my presidents. If I had met any of them, I would have been respectful and varying degrees of excited, because whatever I thought about each human being, they all legitimately held an office I respect.
Bush did not, and If I had been in a position to meet Bush, I would have turned away to avoid spitting on his outstretched hand, if not in his eye.
S
How exactly is saying that homosexuals make bad parents not bigoted?
There is very little in this world that I’m absolutely sure of, but there are a couple of things:
-
One size does not, in fact, fit all
-
Unless you are currently living in a cave and depending on your wits and a sharp stick for your dinner, “that’s the way it’s always been” is not a very credible argument
The “popping balloons” comment did it for me.
Reminds me of the photographer that was in the news months back for taking a series of pictures in which she made babies cry. At least her effort was successful and done in the name of art.
See, I don’t think this is necessarily true. Obviously, to some degree, the “kill the fags” crowd is part of the “you can’t let them marry” crowd… but I’m sure some part of the group is there due to simple ignorance, or herd mentality, or because somebody told them Jesus wouldn’t be down with it.
I suppose it’s immaterial, in the end; either way, they must be stopped.
Oh, man, dba Fred, it’s a shame to see you go, we hardly knew ye.
I’m trying, I’m trying! 
I’m formulating a reply but I was distracted by an IM argument with a pretty lady. I’ve also found it more difficult to defend than attack :smack:
I didn’t run away, I’m trying to combine a reply to several posts and doing my best to be clear in my writing.
I believe I did answer the questions you asked in Post #11 with my Post #37.
You, Revtim, Miller CircleofWillis and StR all asked how I explain my “Yes” on AZ Prop 102, my reasoning.
There are many factors that enter into the mix from which I made my decision.
- The society/culture I grew up in depicted a marriage as between a man and a women, overwhelmingly but not exclusively with the goal of procreation. That was the family I grew up in, my friends’ parents’ marriages and how a marriage was depicted in books, movies and television. Thus my frame of reference was shaped.
- I was raised in the Catholic Church (uh oh, religion) and the Church is obviously a proponent of marriage being between a man and a woman. However, I ceased practicing in my late teens so while I was exposed to the religious definition of marriage, I don’t believe it has an influence on how I voted.
- In college I took numerous social psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology courses. My recollection is that in the overwhelming majority of societies/cultures there was a pairing of a man and a women in a marriage, with a smattering of multiple wives or multiple husband marriages. Because marriage being a man and a women in so many different societies/cultures in so many different places over centuries lends weight to my thinking there is a reason for it occurring.
- I previously mentioned that while AZ has a statue prohibiting same-sex marriages, by amending the State Constitution, passage of Prop 102 makes it more difficult to overturn by an arbitrary court ruling rather than legislative process.
- In Post #100, cmosdes’s quote from a conservative friend of his concerning culture is similar to what I sai above. I wouldn’t have made the remarks about raising children, a good, loving parent is a good parent period. I do believe a good male-female couple is better than a good same-sex couple which may be better than a good single parent but I haven’t seen any studies to support my belief. Unscientifically I would postulate the good male-female couple is the optimum situation because the child is socialized with one of each gender, which the child will encounter in the larger world, as well as male-female parenting being the usual enviornment.
- While not automaticlly confered as it is with a male-female marriage, with some efforts in most jurisdictions, a same-sex couple can achieve most of the same benefits (inheritance, property acquisition, medical power of attorney, child adoption). I’m guessing the tax benefit of filing jointly, Federal and State, does not.
Basically it came down to my not seeing a same-sex marriage as being functionally equivilent to a male-female marriage and not wanting to see the term “marriage” applied to same-sex unions.
Will the issue be back? I expect it will. Do I have a position? No, I haven’t seen what it would encompass.
Would I/could I support a support a civil union-type of marriage for gay people? I’m being honest when I say that until I saw its language I can’t say.
Is my being against SSM the same as being bigoted/prejudiced towards gay people?
I don’t think so: I’ve never physically or verbally assulted a person because of their sexual orientation, I’ve never worked for or contributed to anti-gay legislation or movement (unless I unknowingly purchased something from a company that was spending money that way), in any supervisory position I’ve held I’ve never treated or evaluated a person diffierently because of their sexual orientation (I never asked, they never told so maybe I don’t get points for that?), I’m over 50 now and if you went back to my teen years I probably spouted some macho-posturing anti-gay remarks a few times but none that I can recall.
Do I discriminate against gay people?
I do in terms of sexual partners and I expect the feeling is mutual. I wouldn’t select a gay man and a gay woman wouldn’t select me (maybe for laughs?). As sexual partners, I also discriminate against by excluding underage females, crazy women and women who are “spoken for” (married, engaged, currently involved with a man … unless they bring a permission slip from their partner).