Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[David Brider]

Actually I would agree with you on the basis of sexual orientation such a person has "homosexual tendencies" that is to perform homosexual acts.

No - sexual orientation is a tendency to be attracted to people of a particular gender; in the case of homosexuality, it's a tendency to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself. It's not a tendency to "perform homosexual acts". Apart from anything, isn't "homosexual acts" rather a nebulous phrase? What exactly does it mean? If a homosexual wakes up in the morning, has a shower, takes his dog for a walk, and then has scrambled eggs for breakfast before going to work, are they "homosexual acts"?

While the other who already does that is already defined as such.

Sorry, I'm not quite understanding you here - the other who does what is defined as what?

That is why identifying with being a homosexual IMHO is not enough to be called a homosexual as much as you are a murderer if you contemplaint a murder...

No; given that "homosexual" refers primarily to sexual orientation, a homosexual is simply someone who tends to be attracted to people of the same gender as him/herself. Self-identifying as a homosexual is, or at least should be, enough for a person to be considered a homosexual, regardless of any other factors.

David.

 

[Shane Roach]

Actually, I would have to disagree on the whole idea that you get to decide what your child learns. I don't know about you but if I had my right to an equal education removed I'd be pretty upset.

I think its funny that you just talked about "gay indoctrination" and then you talk about home schooling kids so that they learn what you want them to learn and only learn the things that fall in line with your faith. Personally I think that anyone that does this is doing a great disservice to their children but put I'm sure plenty of people think its none of my business.

More socialism at work. The government defines right and wrong, and indoctrinates your children for you at no extra charge.

 

[b&wpac4]

More socialism at work. The government defines right and wrong, and indoctrinates your children for you at no extra charge.

Why was this not a problem when it was more Christian oriented?

 

[Shane Roach]

No - sexual orientation is a tendency to be attracted to people of a particular gender; in the case of homosexuality, it's a tendency to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself. It's not a tendency to "perform homosexual acts". Apart from anything, isn't "homosexual acts" rather a nebulous phrase? What exactly does it mean? If a homosexual wakes up in the morning, has a shower, takes his dog for a walk, and then has scrambled eggs for breakfast before going to work, are they "homosexual acts"?



Sorry, I'm not quite understanding you here - the other who does what is defined as what?


No; given that "homosexual" refers primarily to sexual orientation, a homosexual is simply someone who tends to be attracted to people of the same gender as him/herself. Self-identifying as a homosexual is, or at least should be, enough for a person to be considered a homosexual, regardless of any other factors.

David.

Part of behavior is thought. If a person has homosexual thought patterns, that is still a behavior. That's the whole point. I have never argued that is not possible, though none of you have proven it and there are studies that call it into question.

If you are sitting doing sums in your head, are you not exhibiting a behavior?

One does not have a black orientation or a female or male orientation. Orientations are specific to behavior. All behaviors spring in some sense from internal orientations regarding motives.

That is why you are wrong, and part of why I mistrust gays and bis so deeply. It seems the longer you discuss things with them, the more tortured the logic gets with some. They exhibit a need to be accepted and no concept of why they are not, so they lash out at people for no reason and try to change the meanings of things to rationalize their own positions.

This is the same pattern I see with socialists, whose main motive strangely seems to be disgust with religion. They cannot fathom why so many people believe in it, and they convince themselves that it is illogical, yet clearly it is not.

I mistrust pretty much any identifiable group for whom I find it difficult to even have a simple, straight forward conversation. It speaks to motives that are not grounded in truth.

I was very live and let live about the general subject of homosexuality, and in all honesty I still do not say I dislike individual homosexuals. Heck most times unless they tell you you can't tell anyhow (as opposed to race or gender.....). But the topic has been politically charged now and we are forced to take sides, and the longer the assault on decency goes, the less sympathy I have.

 

[FlamingFemme]

I typically don't need a paragraph to answer this. Anything that has to do with men and women having kids is unique to them because gays don't have the kids. In those instances, it is necessary to have a legal policy specific to them.

If you can't find one of those yourself, fine. You know? "Who's the father?" "Oh, I dunno, just pick a random dude."

If they were married beforehand, that helps alleviate that problem. That's the whole point -- to make things simpler rather than more complex and confused.

Okay...
I'm having a really hard time dealing with the fact that even though you have been told, over and over, that gay people DO, in fact, have children, you keep saying that we don't.
I am gay. I have a child. I am in a monogamous, life-long, committed relationship. We own a house. We pay taxes. We both contribute to the health and well-being of our child.
So...
What, EXACTLY, separates my relationships from man/woman couples who are also raising children?
The answer is NOTHING. Nothing at all. There is NO DIFFERENCE between my family, which consists of two people raising a child, and any one else's family, where there is a committed/married couple raising a child. I'm really not sure what part of this is so hard for you to understand.
Once again, I will ask you to please stop referring to families headed by same-sex couples as 'not real families'. It's not fair, it's not respectful, and it's downright mean.

 

[Shane Roach]

Okay...
I'm having a really hard time dealing with the fact that even though you have been told, over and over, that gay people DO, in fact, have children, you keep saying that we don't.
I am gay. I have a child. I am in a monogamous, life-long, committed relationship. We own a house. We pay taxes. We both contribute to the health and well-being of our child.
So...
What, EXACTLY, separates my relationships from man/woman couples who are also raising children?
The answer is NOTHING. Nothing at all. There is NO DIFFERENCE between my family, which consists of two people raising a child, and any one else's family, where there is a committed/married couple raising a child. I'm really not sure what part of this is so hard for you to understand.
Once again, I will ask you to please stop referring to families headed by same-sex couples as 'not real families'. It's not fair, it's not respectful, and it's downright mean.

You had homosexual sex that led to you or your partner getting pregnant and having a child?

Please do not just openly insult my intelligence. I have in fact on occasion allowed as adoptive families are real, but there is a sense, a biological one, in which they are not, and if the truth is going to make you furious with me then I cannot help that.

No one is faulting anyone for adoption, but there is a distinction between adoption and actual, factual blood relationships.

Should you care to discuss how important non-genetic issues of family are, I could understand, but you seem determined to twist my words in order to invent a reason to take offense so that no one is allowed to then draw a very clear and real distinction.

 

[Braunwyn]

FlamingFemme, regarding tax breaks; are you at least able to file head of house hold?

 

[Braunwyn]

You had homosexual sex that led to you or your partner getting pregnant and having a child?

Please do not just openly insult my intelligence. I have in fact on occasion allowed as adoptive families are real, but there is a sense, a biological one, in which they are not, and if the truth is going to make you furious with me then I cannot help that.

No one is faulting anyone for adoption, but there is a distinction between adoption and actual, factual blood relationships.

Should you care to discuss how important non-genetic issues of family are, I could understand, but you seem determined to twist my words in order to invent a reason to take offense so that no one is allowed to then draw a very clear and real distinction.

I think it depends on the parties involved. There may very well be a distinction for some, but fortunately, we're not all carbon copies of eachother.

 

[beechy]

But cannot be treated uniquely any more when necessary, and we need marriage and family law reform.

When is it "necessary" to treat all heterosexual relationships uniquely?

So the distinct characteristics of marriage that need to be addressed such as why a man whose wife cheats on him should get half of the stuff when she brought in 5% of it, or why a woman should not get alimony for the rest of her life when she dedicated 20 years of her life to raising a man's kids who dumped her for a younger model once they got old.

There is so much that is in actuality unfair in life. Why create more? What is the point of all of this? It helps no one. Even the gays themselves are going to run into troubles with marriage law as messed up as it is now, but that is not the point. It is all about getting a title and running religion into the dirt.

Sounds like you think there are things about current family and marriage laws which are unfair. Why do you care if gay couples want to subject themselves to this unfairness?

That is the great joy that is universal to this movement. Look at BBW celebrating a church being forced to accept something sinful going on in its own property by the state. That exultation against simple rights to freedom with ones own property -- that's what the anti-Christians live for. That's all this is about.

I'm not sure what BBW is. But in any case, generally speaking, just because property is privately owned doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. If you run a restaurant in a building you own, for example, you can't declare the restaurant is for Christians only and refuse to serve Muslims because you think they're blasphemous practicioners of a false religion.

 

[beechy]

More socialism at work. The government defines right and wrong, and indoctrinates your children for you at no extra charge.

Do you think the concept of free public schools is socialist?

 

[Shane Roach]

When is it "necessary" to treat all heterosexual relationships uniquely?

Because that's where the kids come from, and they are uniquely unequal relationsips as opposed to gays, who are equal in every physical way.

Thus, women can have no protection in regard to financial needs, and men can have no protection in terms of confidence as to whose kids they are raising, if we continue to do away with specifically heterosexual marriage.

I'm not sure what BBW is. But in any case, generally speaking, just because property is privately owned doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. If you run a restaurant in a building you own, for example, you can't declare the restaurant is for Christians only and refuse to serve Muslims because you think they're blasphemous practicioners of a false religion.

In other words, yes, you support the end of freedom of religion. Thanks for the honesty.

 

[Shane Roach]

Do you think the concept of free public schools is socialist?

There's no such thing as a free school.

The people paying for them should have more control over them than the professional organizations that draw the paychecks.

 

[Shane Roach]

I think it depends on the parties involved. There may very well be a distinction for some, but fortunately, we're not all carbon copies of eachother.

There are things in this world that do not depend on opinion, and the fact that heterosexuals have the kids is one of those facts.

But this is endless and senseless. I've explained it dozens of times and the questions just go around in the same predictable circles.

You don't care about the kids. None of you do. Attacking religion is the game, and the destruction of marriage is the trophy. Those of us who grew up in the disrupted and weak families that resulted from the first bout of liberal social engineering know exactly how much you cared for us when we were kids.

Have a nice day.

 

[beechy]

Because that's where the kids come from, and they are uniquely unequal relationsips as opposed to gays, who are equal in every physical way.

So the uniqueness you're interested in is the unique ability of heterosexual relationships which can produce children. Not all heterosexual relationships can produce children however, so these latter non-child producing relationship need not be treated uniquely.

Thus, women can have no protection in regard to financial needs, and men can have no protection in terms of confidence as to whose kids they are raising, if we continue to do away with specifically heterosexual marriage.

Women can have protection in regard to financial needs if the law imposes a requirement that a child's parents are financially responsible for their children (which it does, they're call child support laws and they apply if a child's parents are divorced, or if they were never married in the first place). As for the paternity issue, marriage provides no greater guarantee of fidelity than an extramarital commitment -- IOW, your wife can cheat on you as easily as your girlfriend.

In other words, yes, you support the end of freedom of religion. Thanks for the honesty.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." A restaurant (as I cited in my previous example) is considered a place of public accommodation. I support the Federal Civil Rights Act -- do you think it should be repealed?

 

[Braunwyn]

There are things in this world that do not depend on opinion, and the fact that heterosexuals have the kids is one of those facts.

But this is endless and senseless. I've explained it dozens of times and the questions just go around in the same predictable circles.

You don't care about the kids. None of you do. Attacking religion is the game, and the destruction of marriage is the trophy. Those of us who grew up in the disrupted and weak families that resulted from the first bout of liberal social engineering know exactly how much you cared for us when we were kids.

Have a nice day.

Shane, I think you're making this too personal. Not everyone had a family like yours. And not everyone will react in the same way as you do/have.

Some simply disagree with you. And that does not equate to hating (bad word; not caring about) religion, children, etc...or not caring at all.

 

[beechy]

There's no such thing as a free school.

The people paying for them should have more control over them than the professional organizations that draw the paychecks.

Do you think that public schools funded by the government using taxpayer dollars are a socialist concept?

 

[beechy]

There are things in this world that do not depend on opinion, and the fact that heterosexuals have the kids is one of those facts.

Children are conceived through heterosexual sex. I freely admit and do not dispute this fact.

But this is endless and senseless. I've explained it dozens of times and the questions just go around in the same predictable circles.

I feel the same way with respect to you.

You don't care about the kids. None of you do. Attacking religion is the game, and the destruction of marriage is the trophy. Those of us who grew up in the disrupted and weak families that resulted from the first bout of liberal social engineering know exactly how much you cared for us when we were kids.

Have a nice day.

I care about kids. I think people should be free to practice their religious beliefs. Maybe I missed this somewhere -- did your parents divorce? Is that the victimization you keep referencing? If so, that sucks, but all I want to do is to marry my partner. I have no intention of breaking up other peoples' marriages. And your parents could have circumvented the "liberal social engineering" by not getting a divorce despite having the option to do so. Do you think your family would have been better off if your folks had stayed together?

You have a nice day as well.

 

[FlamingFemme]

FlamingFemme, regarding tax breaks; are you at least able to file head of house hold?

At the state level, we can file a joint return as a married couple. However, at the federal level, neither one of us can file as 'head of household' because, technically, neither one of us pays for 'more than 50%' of the household expenses. And, since the federal government views the two of us as no more than roommates, only one of us can claim our daughter as a dependent. To tell you the truth, the difficulty in filing our taxes is one of the most infuriating aspects of not being legally married in the eyes of the federal government.

 

[FlamingFemme]

You had homosexual sex that led to you or your partner getting pregnant and having a child?

*nods*
Yup, that's why we've been on the front page of every medical journal, magazine, and newspaper in the country.
/sarcasm

Please do not just openly insult my intelligence. I have in fact on occasion allowed as adoptive families are real, but there is a sense, a biological one, in which they are not, and if the truth is going to make you furious with me then I cannot help that.

No one is saying that adoptive families are biological. But that still doesn't make them less 'real', or less worthy of protections afforded to biological families.

No one is faulting anyone for adoption, but there is a distinction between adoption and actual, factual blood relationships.

There is no distinction. That's why family law protects adoptive families in the same way it protects biological ones.

Should you care to discuss how important non-genetic issues of family are, I could understand, but you seem determined to twist my words in order to invent a reason to take offense so that no one is allowed to then draw a very clear and real distinction.

I'm not 'determined to twist [your] words'. What I am determined to do, however, is to refute your claim that my family, simply because it is headed by a same-sex couple, is not a 'real' family. It doesn't matter that our daughter doesn't share genes with both of us. It doesn't matter that she may not look like both of us. The two of us are her legal parents, and there are no others. Just me, and her other mom. I get that you don't think that people should be openly gay. But they are. I get that you don't want openly gay people raising children. But they are. And nothing you do or say is going to change those simple facts. So, since we exist, and our children exist, we deserve the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as you do.

 

[Philothei]

Do you think that public schools funded by the government using taxpayer dollars are a socialist concept?

I think that is irrelevant. Socialism would promote these causes to maintain jobs? I do not think so... They offer absolutely nothing and this money could be given to poor teachers who make peanuts ...

Since homosexual relationships are now officially “normal”, the Legislature now gives enormous tax money to homosexual activist groups. In particular, the Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth is made up of the most radical and militant homosexual groups which target children in the schools. This year they are getting $700,000 of taxpayer money to go into the public schools.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts