Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Polycarp1]

Come on... I am so tired of this. Stop pretending it doesn't matter where children come from. Obviously it is a huge big deal. In order to prevent kids from needing adoption in the first place, it is best if parents get married, have their kids and raise them. Marriage is supposed to encourage this. To do so, it has to remain about heterosexuals. It's exceedingly simple.

I'm sorry if this would have resulted in you not having a child, buy I am more concerned with what we are putting our kids through in the name of "equality". I've lived through the mess the last liberal push made of marriage, and I have seen the evidence that it has harmed a lot more people than just me.

Excuses do not get people's lives back for them. This nation owes it to the next generation to start backtracking on the sexual revolution.

There os a HUGE difference between gestation and parturition, on the one hand, and the nurture of the offspring through childhood and adolescence to adulthood.

And as half of a heterosexual couple without children of our bodies who took in disturbed children of broken marriages and nurtured them, I'm highly offended at your reduction of parenting to sexual relations and childbirth.

Anyone who's ever raised a child knows that there is a lot more work in the 18 years following childbirth than in the 9 months before. And that is often done by someone who is not the biological parent of the child but who has come to love it and care for it.

 

[Shane Roach]

There os a HUGE difference between gestation and parturition, on the one hand, and the nurture of the offspring through childhood and adolescence to adulthood.

And as half of a heterosexual couple without children of our bodies who took in disturbed children of broken marriages and nurtured them, I'm highly offended at your reduction of parenting to sexual relations and childbirth.

Anyone who's ever raised a child knows that there is a lot more work in the 18 years following childbirth than in the 9 months before. And that is often done by someone who is not the biological parent of the child but who has come to love it and care for it.

Nice straw man there. No one has reduced the entirety of the issue as you say. We are asked specific questions about the issue, so naturally the answers are specific to the issue.

The fact remains, if the focus was on preserving marriages and strengthening the insitution, we could reduce divorce and reduce the number of children needing adoption in the first place. And by all measures available, that would be a good thing.

But gays and bisexuals are not interested in that, which is part of what disturbs me about them in general. It seems the more gays a society has, the more damage they do to even the possibility of unity on a subject.

How can anyone argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids biological families?

 

[David Brider]

To Andreusz and David Brider.
As I said if for homosexual the same sex attraction is not sex, why the same sex attraction?

It's "same sex" in the sense of "same gender" - attraction to people of the same gender as oneself.

The attraction is to people, not to the act of sexual intercourse.

Does that make sense?

David.

 

[Polycarp1]

No, one cannot argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids' biological families.

Are you arguing that it's a good thing to reduce the number of available parents willing to make a family for a child who has lost one or both biological parents? Or whose parents are clearly unfit (as in abusive, neglectful, abandoning the child, etc.)? Because that is what it comes down to.

I frankly don't know where the gays you're referencing come from. Because except for a few younger ones who, like many young adults, just want to party hearty, the ones I'm familiar with want marriage and family -- just like the rest of us.

 

[beechy]

The fact remains, if the focus was on preserving marriages and strengthening the insitution, we could reduce divorce and reduce the number of children needing adoption in the first place. And by all measures available, that would be a good thing.

Um, lifting the bans on gay marriage will not change the number of heterosexual divorces, nor will it have any impact on the number of children needing adoption. Would you make the same argument to interracial couples seeking to lift marriage bans in the 1960's?

"Hey interaccial couples -- stop being so selfish! If you really want to help marriage as an institution, stop distracting people with your whining and go find someone your own color to be with, like everyone else! All of us have the right to marry within our race, and that way you won't have any mixed up interracial babies condemned to a lifelong struggle with their cultural identities. What we should be focusing on are the REAL problems plagueing the marriage institution, like escalating divorce rates and extramarital sex."

 

[BigBadWlf]

But gays and bisexuals are not interested in that,

Evidence?

which is part of what disturbs me about them in general. It seems the more gays a society has, the more damage they do to even the possibility of unity on a subject.

Evidence?

How can anyone argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids biological families?

It is if that child’s biological family is engaging in child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, verbal abuse etc

 

[Philothei]

So I take it you realized I was correct about your mistakes in terminology and intentions then?

no. Your take is wrong anyways what you said had nothing to do with the content of my post..

 

[Shane Roach]

It is if that child’s biological family is engaging in child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, verbal abuse etc

The same happens in gay families. Nice change of topic.

I know where this comes from and I know where it is going. Evil is evil. The destruction of the family in this country has already achieved much evil, and further attacks will achieve nothing but further evil.

The focus should be on the family, not on treating people with perverse sexual habits as if they are the exact same as everyone else.

 

[Shane Roach]

Um, lifting the bans on gay marriage will not change the number of heterosexual divorces, nor will it have any impact on the number of children needing adoption. Would you make the same argument to interracial couples seeking to lift marriage bans in the 1960's?

"Hey interaccial couples -- stop being so selfish! If you really want to help marriage as an institution, stop distracting people with your whining and go find someone your own color to be with, like everyone else! All of us have the right to marry within our race, and that way you won't have any mixed up interracial babies condemned to a lifelong struggle with their cultural identities. What we should be focusing on are the REAL problems plagueing the marriage institution, like escalating divorce rates and extramarital sex."

Dishonest comparison between race and behavior. Another sign of where this push really comes from.

I think gay marriage will eventually increase the number of divorces. Certainly the attitude toward the family one must take to fail to see the difference between gays and straights where family is concerned cannot help but undermine the model of a healthy family.

Nothing like this happens all at once. It took years for divorce to reach the debacle it did, and years more to connect the divorce rate to problems we are seeing sweep over society now.

But none of you care a whit for that.

 

[beechy]

The same happens in gay families. Nice change of topic.

You asked: "How can anyone argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids biological families?", and he gave you a perfectly reasonable, obvious answer. Your question was flawed, not his response.

I know where this comes from and I know where it is going. Evil is evil. The destruction of the family in this country has already achieved much evil, and further attacks will achieve nothing but further evil.

How does gay marriage destroy the family?

The focus should be on the family, not on treating people with perverse sexual habits as if they are the exact same as everyone else.

The fact that my partner and I are of the same sex does not mean we will be any less focused on providing a stable home for our children, or that we are any less fit as parents than we would be if one of us was a man. What we do in the privacy of our bedroom is totally irrelevant.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Nice straw man there. No one has reduced the entirety of the issue as you say. We are asked specific questions about the issue, so naturally the answers are specific to the issue.

The fact remains, if the focus was on preserving marriages and strengthening the insitution, we could reduce divorce and reduce the number of children needing adoption in the first place. And by all measures available, that would be a good thing.

But gays and bisexuals are not interested in that, which is part of what disturbs me about them in general. It seems the more gays a society has, the more damage they do to even the possibility of unity on a subject.

How can anyone argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids biological families?

And the fact remains that there ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN needing adoption in this country. 'Strengthening the insitution' of marriage is not going to change that.
And to say that 'gays and bisexuals are not interested' in reducing the number of children needing adoption is a presumptuous statement not based on fact. You can't possibly know what all 'gays and bisexuals' think or want.

I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone, here. I don't presume to speak for the whole gay community just as I'm sure you don't think you speak for the entire Christian community. I speak for me, and only me.
As an individual person, who loves, laughs, works, plays, and sleeps just like you, I am asking you, just this one last time, to please answer my question, in list form, with a few SPECIFIC examples.
Exactly what 'duties and obligations' of marriage apply exclusively to heterosexual couples that would NEVER apply to homosexual couples?
Please list specific examples. I want to know exactly what parts of marriage law could NEVER apply to me. You keep saying there are lots, so can't you just please answer my question, simply, without bloviating for paragraphs?
If not, then I promise I will not bother you for it again.

 

[beechy]

Dishonest comparison between race and behavior. Another sign of where this push really comes from.

How is this dishonest?

I think gay marriage will eventually increase the number of divorces. Certainly the attitude toward the family one must take to fail to see the difference between gays and straights where family is concerned cannot help but undermine the model of a healthy family.

Nothing like this happens all at once. It took years for divorce to reach the debacle it did, and years more to connect the divorce rate to problems we are seeing sweep over society now.

But none of you care a whit for that.

Allowing gay people to get married is about building relationships, not ending them. Two adults committing themselves to each other and to their children (if they have any). That's what it's about.

 

[Shane Roach]

You asked: "How can anyone argue that it's a bad thing to preserve kids biological families?", and he gave you a perfectly reasonable, obvious answer. Your question was flawed, not his response.

How does gay marriage destroy the family?

The fact that my partner and I are of the same sex does not mean we will be any less focused on providing a stable home for our children, or that we are any less fit as parents than we would be if one of us was a man. What we do in the privacy of our bedroom is totally irrelevant.

Actually it does mean you will be less fit than a normal family because there is no way for the child to see a heterosexual relationship modeled. Admittedly, since the child was going to have that problem anyway thanks to sorry laws and sorry cultural values to begin with, he is now possible in a better place than a foster home, though that is not 100% demonstrable either.

Gay marriage destroys family by redefining it as something it is not and removing any possibility of treating the people who are the source of the vast majority of our future generations in a unique and separate way from people who simply cannot fulfill that role.\

Which, not incidentally, is the same question asked over and over by gay activists, proving they do not actually care about the kids in the first place, because frankly the question answers itself.

 

[Shane Roach]

How is this dishonest?

Allowing gay people to get married is about building relationships, not ending them. Two adults committing themselves to each other and to their children (if they have any). That's what it's about.

In the sense of being dishonest.

Allowing gay people to get married is about ending the very concept of a marriage, thus ending the existence of that unique type of relationship.

Two more self-answering questions.

What about the scads of studies done on how devestating the breakdown int he family has been over the last few decades?

Where's all the concern?

Nowhere, because this movement is about hate and selfishness.

 

[beechy]

Actually it does mean you will be less fit than a normal family because there is no way for the child to see a heterosexual relationship modeled.

We don't plan on raising him in a cave. He'll be exposed to lots of heterosexual relationships. And what makes you think all straight married people are good role models? I know plenty of people who are reliving their parents disastrous, dysfunctional, crazy relationships. And what makes you think that gay relationships are so very different that they can't be analogized and applied to a romantic relationships of opposite sex couples?

Admittedly, since the child was going to have that problem anyway thanks to sorry laws and sorry cultural values to begin with, he is now possible in a better place than a foster home, though that is not 100% demonstrable either.

Heck, he might even be in a better place than with his bio-parents, assuming they stayed together. What if they have a totally dysfunctional, crazy, wife beating, alcoholic marriage?

Gay marriage destroys family by redefining it as something it is not and removing any possibility of treating the people who are the source of the vast majority of our future generations in a unique and separate way from people who simply cannot fulfill that role.

Are my aunt, uncle, and adopted cousin a family? How do you define family?

Letting gay people get married will not stop straight people from getting married. It will not stop straight people (married and unmarried) from having sex and babies as they've done since forever. You can stay or get married in the same manner you would before to your opposite sex partner, whether I'm married or not.

On the flipside, I don't see how preventing gay people from getting married will result in more straight people getting married. I also don't see how preventing gay people from getting married will be good for the children of gay people, or their children's children, or any future generations.

 

[beechy]

In the sense of being dishonest.

Do you think it is ok that interracial couples pushed for restrictions on interracial marriage to be lifted?

Allowing gay people to get married is about ending the very concept of a marriage, thus ending the existence of that unique type of relationship.

No, it is about ending the gender restriction in marriage laws.

Two more self-answering questions.

What about the scads of studies done on how devestating the breakdown int he family has been over the last few decades?

Where's all the concern?

Nowhere, because this movement is about hate and selfishness.

I'm not trying to break apart anybody's family. I'm trying to build one.

 

[Shane Roach]

And the fact remains that there ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN needing adoption in this country. 'Strengthening the insitution' of marriage is not going to change that.
And to say that 'gays and bisexuals are not interested' in reducing the number of children needing adoption is a presumptuous statement not based on fact. You can't possibly know what all 'gays and bisexuals' think or want.

I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone, here. I don't presume to speak for the whole gay community just as I'm sure you don't think you speak for the entire Christian community. I speak for me, and only me.
As an individual person, who loves, laughs, works, plays, and sleeps just like you, I am asking you, just this one last time, to please answer my question, in list form, with a few SPECIFIC examples.
Exactly what 'duties and obligations' of marriage apply exclusively to heterosexual couples that would NEVER apply to homosexual couples?
Please list specific examples. I want to know exactly what parts of marriage law could NEVER apply to me. You keep saying there are lots, so can't you just please answer my question, simply, without bloviating for paragraphs?
If not, then I promise I will not bother you for it again.

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.

 

[Shane Roach]

Do you think it is ok that interracial couples pushed for restrictions on interracial marriage to be lifted?

No, it is about ending the gender restriction in marriage laws.

I'm not trying to break apart anybody's family. I'm trying to build one.

No you are not trying to build one. You already have one of the sort you are insisting on, and you are not being hurt. Yours is a different situation though than someone who wakes up some morning with the child inside them, and you refuse to acknowledge that truth.

That, incidentally, is why the interracial issue is irrelevant. It's not as if black men could not impregnate a white women, or white men the same for blacks. So the issue existed whether or not the state chose to acknowledge it. With gays, the issue simply does not exist. And if you want to adopt, guess what... you can. Single people can adopt. Adoption is a separate issue.

That plus behavior and race are utterly different things to start with.

 

[Exhausted]

No you are not trying to build one. You already have one of the sort you are insisting on, and you are not being hurt. Yours is a different situation though than someone who wakes up some morning with the child inside them, and you refuse to acknowledge that truth.

That, incidentally, is why the interracial issue is irrelevant. It's not as if black men could not impregnate a white women, or white men the same for blacks. So the issue existed whether or not the state chose to acknowledge it. With gays, the issue simply does not exist. And if you want to adopt, guess what... you can. Single people can adopt. Adoption is a separate issue.

That plus behavior and race are utterly different things to start with.

So, still insisting that the old and sterile not be allowed to marry?

 

[beechy]

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.

Let's say the husband in heterosexual Couple 1 is infertile, so they conceive a child through an anonymous sperm donor. And Couple 2 conceived a child the old fashioned way. What legal policies do we need to wrap around Family 1 that are different than the policies we need to wrap around Family 2? Do you think Couple 2 has a greater need to be married than Couple 1, since Couple 2 can conceive a child together and Couple 1 cannot?

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.

The whole point of marriage is to be able to simplify our ability to know who a child's biological father is?