Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

[CrackerJax]

The Germans seem to be the one socialist nation over there that is fiscally responsible.


There one glaring problem is their socialized medicine program(which is going broke). This will be Merkels greatest challenge.

But from all of the socialist systems, they are the most level headed.

It's still quite inferior to capitalism as is all socialism, but if I HAD to choose one.... it would be theirs.

 

[krustofskie]

A little bit to right wing for me but as long as they stay on the socialist side and stay clear of reverting back to fascism I can put up with them. (Sorry years of German hating English heritage I'm trying to shed)

 

[undertheice]

as long as they stay on the socialist side and stay clear of reverting back to fascism I can put up with them.

you do realize that nazism's origins are planted firmly in national socialism, don't you? the nationalization of industry and the reinforcement of national superiority are two of the prime tenets of fascism. i just bring this up because the false paradigm of political right and left irks the crap out of me.

 

[krustofskie]

you do realize that nazism's origins are planted firmly in national socialism, don't you? the nationalization of industry and the reinforcement of national superiority are two of the prime tenets of fascism. i just bring this up because the false paradigm of political right and left irks the crap out of me.

Yep i do know. But they are not a real socialist government anyway, they just have some socialist ideals, as do all governments to some extent. I make reference to the right wing elements in Germany simply because of the racist overtones it rings out to me and because of the countries history. Which is also why I tried to make a small apology as I have instilled in me a general hatred of Germany from my fore fathers due to past incidents, but I know this is wrong of me to do so as I do not follow doctrine to where the sins of the father are passed on.

 

[CrackerJax]

A little bit to right wing for me but as long as they stay on the socialist side and stay clear of reverting back to fascism I can put up with them. (Sorry years of German hating English heritage I'm trying to shed)

Fiscally responsible is a bit too far right wing for you?....

 

[Green Cross]

Here is the information the Gay lobbyists in washington and here on the Internet, don't want you to know:

"Give Kids a Fighting Chance: Ban Gay Adoption"

When imagining a family, who does one envision? What comes to mind for the greater majority of people is a mother, a father, and their children. Throughout history, this has been considered the structure of a proper family.
Recently, however, a group of people has threatened to alter this perfect traditional image out of greed.

Homosexuals in America are relentlessly pushing for their right to adopt children. They are selfishly asking to be labeled equal when compared to heterosexual parents. The act of homosexuals adopting children in America should be made illegal in all fifty states.

There is no disputing that households in which both a mother and a father exist as guardians for a child create a better environment than a household run by homosexuals. The suggestion that same-sex couples are just as suited to raise children as heterosexual couples shows a total disregard for the unique characteristics of a loving union between a husband and his wife (Williams). A little boy without a father or a young girl without a mother will undoubtedly miss out on many opportunities to understand what it means to be a member of their respective genders. According to Robert Triggs Oxford, a writer for The Spectator magazine in Britain,

The researches of child psychiatrists reveal overwhelmingly that a child brought up by a mother and a father - with two distinctive role-models to emulate - has an infinitely better chance of facing the challenges of life as a mature and balanced individual than one brought up by singlesex 'parents' (Oxford).

</U>More here: Very informative and non-bias

 

[CrackerJax]

Non bias.... funny stuff.

I would rather have a child grow up with TWO gay parents than ONE straight parent.

It's all in the parenting skills, not in the parents sexual preference.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Big march on the Capitol yesterday. Gay Rights. Many were protesting the President and his reluctance to follow up on key campaign promises vis a vis gay rights.

Are these people un-patriotic or un-American?

Of course not. Just the opposite. They were displaying traits both patriotic and American. They were exercising their right to peaceably assemble just like the tea-party protesters.

I and other Conservatives receive a lot of criticism from those on the Left who say we offer nothing but criticism for PrezBo. But on this issue I support the President. Saturday he made a speech saying he will end Don't Ask, Dont Tell in the military. Bravo! Excellent!

Another brilliant speech. My question mirrors many of those protesting yesterday: When does he plan to actually do it?

 

[undertheice]

But they are not a real socialist government anyway, they just have some socialist ideals, as do all governments to some extent.

then i would really like to know what your definition of socialism is. nazi germany was the epitome of the socialist state, both economically and socially. industry under the complete control of the ruling party, the people brought into line by a universal ideal and the strong arm of a national security force, the survival and growth of the state an all important focus of every facet of life - these are the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset of socialism.

the enforced social reform and consolidation of power we see throughout our declining society are merely the first vestiges of that collapse into an authoritarian culture. the demonization of the individual for the furtherance of society's goals cannot help but lead us down that road and we are well on our way. the mindless mob, who's directed will is the power of the state, has been used most effectively by every self-described fascist nation and this is exactly what we see happening all around us. the promises of "a better world if only we strip those chosen scapegoats of their rights" are even now being uttered by the leaders of the so-called free world. one of the last refuges of the rights of the individual, the united states, is willingly falling prey to the same rhetoric that bred some of history's vilest atrocities.

 

[Stoney McFried]

An excerpt from this site about this "non Biased" researcher who wrote the article green cross posted:

• On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
• At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."

Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_cameron_sheet.html


Sounds like bias to me.

Here is the information the Gay lobbyists in washington and here on the Internet, don't want you to know:

"Give Kids a Fighting Chance: Ban Gay Adoption"

When imagining a family, who does one envision? What comes to mind for the greater majority of people is a mother, a father, and their children. Throughout history, this has been considered the structure of a proper family.
Recently, however, a group of people has threatened to alter this perfect traditional image out of greed.

Homosexuals in America are relentlessly pushing for their right to adopt children. They are selfishly asking to be labeled equal when compared to heterosexual parents. The act of homosexuals adopting children in America should be made illegal in all fifty states.

There is no disputing that households in which both a mother and a father exist as guardians for a child create a better environment than a household run by homosexuals. The suggestion that same-sex couples are just as suited to raise children as heterosexual couples shows a total disregard for the unique characteristics of a loving union between a husband and his wife (Williams). A little boy without a father or a young girl without a mother will undoubtedly miss out on many opportunities to understand what it means to be a member of their respective genders. According to Robert Triggs Oxford, a writer for The Spectator magazine in Britain,

The researches of child psychiatrists reveal overwhelmingly that a child brought up by a mother and a father - with two distinctive role-models to emulate - has an infinitely better chance of facing the challenges of life as a mature and balanced individual than one brought up by singlesex 'parents' (Oxford).

</U>More here: Very informative and non-bias

 

[CrackerJax]

Big march on the Capitol yesterday. Gay Rights. Many were protesting the President and his reluctance to follow up on key campaign promises vis a vis gay rights.

Are these people un-patriotic or un-American?

Of course not. Just the opposite. They were displaying traits both patriotic and American. They were exercising their right to peaceably assemble just like the tea-party protesters.

I and other Conservatives receive a lot of criticism from those on the Left who say we offer nothing but criticism for PrezBo. But on this issue I support the President. Saturday he made a speech saying he will end Don't Ask, Dont Tell in the military. Bravo! Excellent!

Another brilliant speech. My question mirrors many of those protesting yesterday: When does he plan to actually do it?

A very salient point JO... as usual...

 

[undertheice]

come on now folks, we all know that the entire gay marriage debate is more a matter of semantics than anything else. only the most intolerant among us don't believe that we should all have the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of our choices or inclinations. the most honest and valid argument i have heard to date against gay marriage has been made by the religious extremists, that marriage is an institution ordained by god and that the sin of homosexuality pollutes that institution, and even that argument falls flat. the co-opting of marriage by the state so long ago negates any claim the religious may have had to the sanctity of that union. if they were so concerned with that sanctity, why didn't they raise some sort of ruckus to keep government's greedy paws off of the tradition in the first place?

as for children, there seems to be no real down side to gay households. the gender roles that many of us grew up with have become so confused and obscured by social upheaval that there seems little difference what a household consists of. one parent may be sufficient, but two is preferable and three, four or twelve may be even better and, regardless of skewed statistics and cultural bias, there seems little difference which genders are involved as long as a nurturing environment is maintained. the damage we do to our children has less to do with our sexual preferences than our uncaring attitudes and tendency to abdicate our parental roles, escaping our responsibility for future generations in favor of satisfying our immediate desires.

that there may be some detrimental effect to redefining marriage is undeniable, but aren't we getting used to that? with the good always comes the bad. i doubt any of us really understand what those effects may be, but they will be there nonetheless. that we should accept our differences and move beyond the petty squabbling over who fucks who seems far more important than a battle over the mere definition of a term. in the end, the traditionalists will lose this war and move on to other, more important, matters.

 

[doobnVA]

then i would really like to know what your definition of socialism is. nazi germany was the epitome of the socialist state, both economically and socially. industry under the complete control of the ruling party, the people brought into line by a universal ideal and the strong arm of a national security force, the survival and growth of the state an all important focus of every facet of life - these are the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset of socialism.

the enforced social reform and consolidation of power we see throughout our declining society are merely the first vestiges of that collapse into an authoritarian culture. the demonization of the individual for the furtherance of society's goals cannot help but lead us down that road and we are well on our way. the mindless mob, who's directed will is the power of the state, has been used most effectively by every self-described fascist nation and this is exactly what we see happening all around us. the promises of "a better world if only we strip those chosen scapegoats of their rights" are even now being uttered by the leaders of the so-called free world. one of the last refuges of the rights of the individual, the united states, is willingly falling prey to the same rhetoric that bred some of history's vilest atrocities.

with socialism, there is NO "ruling party".. there is democratic rule, where everyone has an equal voice. it is not "totalitarian", it is egalitarian.

Just because some dictator says his nation is "socialist" "democratic" or "marshmallow flavored", doesn't mean we should believe him (after all, he's a dictator, right?). Kind of how the US claims to be "democratic", when we all know full well it's the lobbyists who have the real voice in Washington.

 

[maxamus1]

I didn't read through the thread and I'm not going to. I'm just wondering if anyone has pointed out that there is a huge difference between allowing Gays to live as legal spouses and redefining marriage. I am all for gay rights and think they should have the same rights as everyone.

I do not however believe that marriage ought to be redefined because that is another issue. To redefine marriage means that everyone MUST accept the gay lifestyle as equal to traditional marriage. What that means is that schools would be FORCED to teach about gay marriage and about gay sex in sex ed classes.


how would you be forced to accept it? are you afraid to talk to your kids about gay sex or to let them make their own decisions on it.






School libraries would be FORCED to include children's books about Gay couples along side more traditional books. Gay activist groups and their lawyers such as the ACLU might even sue to ensure that such books are present in equal number.


who cares will your children be reading them?

And of course we will be up to our ears in lawsuits if adoption agencies refuse to place children in gay homes. This has already become an issue where gay marriage is legal and the Catholic Church has been forced out of the adoption business already in these states.


why should they not beable to raise children?



Looking into the future, I can envision a day when Gays protest because they feel under represented in Hollywood just as Blacks have done in the not too distant past.

In the end, giving Gays equal rights is easy and it isn't the issue. The gay marriage debate isn't about equal rights, it is about forcing the general public to abandon their own beliefs and accept the gay lifestyle as part of the mainstream.

change is such a bad thing.

While I am all for gay rights, I refuse to help them force their ways down the throats of others who do not agree with it and I refuse to take a chance on putting children into situations that my experience and intuition tells me has a high probability for child abuse.


there is no proof of that, at all. why do you even think that?

If two guys want to live together as husband and husband it is their business, I just think they should keep it that way.

then don't go into their home and you wont have to worry about it.

 

[reefermdns]

WE (yes me, my partner, my friends, my family, my comunity) ARE FIGHTING to have the same HUMAN RIGHTS that heterosexual couples have, WE ARE NOT fighting for the CHURCH of all fucking places to recognize this, THIS is NOT A RELIGIOUS battle so STOP trying to make it one.

NO ON 8.....I DO SUPPORT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY!!

 

[ink the world]

I didn't read through the thread and I'm not going to. I'm just wondering if anyone has pointed out that there is a huge difference between allowing Gays to live as legal spouses and redefining marriage. I am all for gay rights and think they should have the same rights as everyone.

I do not however believe that marriage ought to be redefined because that is another issue. To redefine marriage means that everyone MUST accept the gay lifestyle as equal to traditional marriage. What that means is that schools would be FORCED to teach about gay marriage and about gay sex in sex ed classes.

School libraries would be FORCED to include children's books about Gay couples along side more traditional books. Gay activist groups and their lawyers such as the ACLU might even sue to ensure that such books are present in equal number.

And of course we will be up to our ears in lawsuits if adoption agencies refuse to place children in gay homes. This has already become an issue where gay marriage is legal and the Catholic Church has been forced out of the adoption business already in these states.

Looking into the future, I can envision a day when Gays protest because they feel under represented in Hollywood just as Blacks have done in the not too distant past.

In the end, giving Gays equal rights is easy and it isn't the issue. The gay marriage debate isn't about equal rights, it is about forcing the general public to abandon their own beliefs and accept the gay lifestyle as part of the mainstream.

While I am all for gay rights, I refuse to help them force their ways down the throats of others who do not agree with it and I refuse to take a chance on putting children into situations that my experience and intuition tells me has a high probability for child abuse.

If two guys want to live together as husband and husband it is their business, I just think they should keep it that way.

Wow so many things to pick apart, this could take a while, but i'll give it a crack.

Your post is chock-full of typical Christian Neocon lies and misrepresentations. Children are not taught gay sex techniques, stop spreading the lies brought forth by "good Christian organizations" like the "good" people at "God Hates Fags" etc.

You know the group, they believe the Tsunami was a punishment from God, same as Katrina, and oh yeah they protest at funerals of dead American serviceman. Now thats a classy bunch of people right there.

And oh no, God forbid the gay community gets all "uppity" like those pesky blacks have, thats all we need..

The thing I enjoy the most from your side is the idea that ANYTHING that you dont agree w/ is not "mainstream."

If nothing else, the last election cycle proved that thankfully you bunch of Bible thumping hypocrites ARE NOT the mainstream, just an obnoxiously loud group that is unhappy over losing their grasp on political control in the USA.

You then go on to spout about how exposure to Gay people or Gay adoption would expose those children to abuse....LOL I thought the Catholic church had that market cornered. The decades of abuse, cover ups, lawsuits and now the Church is going broke. Your best bet is to leave the Church out of discussion concerning abuse of children.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Gay rights is not a mainstream issue. If it were gays would already have all rights and privileges of heterosexuals.

Middle America is not on board with gay rights. A very large portion of the President's core constituency are, at best, indifferent to gay rights. The very large portion I refer to is the block of Black people who voted for him in an overwhelming majority.

Don't kid yourselves. There are others in the Democratic fold as well who are fundamentally deaf to the pleas and demands of Gay rights activists.

This is the very reason why the President must exercise leadership on this issue. And I'm not just talking about making pretty speeches about his good intentions.

 

[CrackerJax]

Good Post JO.... and ur right. Gay rights is not a mainstream idea, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Hearts and minds...........

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I remember well when Don't Ask, Don't Tell was enacted. I was in the Army at the time and I was against it because I felt it would weaken the military. I was wrong.

The Democrats could put an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell anytime. The question gay rights supporters must ask is why did they not end it already.

 

[doobnVA]

Gay rights is not a mainstream issue. If it were gays would already have all rights and privileges of heterosexuals.

Middle America is not on board with gay rights. A very large portion of the President's core constituency are, at best, indifferent to gay rights. The very large portion I refer to is the block of Black people who voted for him in an overwhelming majority.

Don't kid yourselves. There are others in the Democratic fold as well who are fundamentally deaf to the pleas and demands of Gay rights activists.

This is the very reason why the President must exercise leadership on this issue. And I'm not just talking about making pretty speeches about his good intentions.

African Americans only make up about 12% of the total US population. Many of these citizens cannot vote, and therefore do not make up a "large portion" of the group that voted for Obama.

Where I live, 25% of African Americans are unable to vote.