vote yes on proposition 8

[Wiccan_Child]

But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.

Indeed. But then, every parent fears for their child. Indeed, most children get abuse of some kind because of their parents.

Would you forbid the, how shall I put it, "cosmetically challenged" to not bear children? Parents with embarrassing sexually transmitted diseases?

This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.

Heretofore unknown? I think you're missing the point of my post: we have had four decades to study the effects of gay parenting. Children are no worse off with same-sex parents than they are with opposite-sex parents: any armchair predictions you make are fruitless, as the facts show.

Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.

... how?

Now let's get back on topic.

We still are.

 

[IzzyPop]

But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.

Right. That is why, when my classmates discovered that my parents were gay, nothing happened. A few questions were asked, but I was never bullied by anyone about it. Do you have any statistical evidence that children with homosexual parents face more bullying than children with heterosexual parents?

 

[wanderingone]

In the instance where the mother is a schitzophrenic and the father is an abusive drunkard, even two hippo's--no, make that two gay hippo's-- would be better parents to the child than the biological alternative.

But we're not talking about abusive biological parents, and we're not talking about hippos, either. We're talking about the ideal, and whether or not the ideal should take legal presidence over the non-ideal.

The ideal is a legally married man and woman raising a child as part of a family. The non-ideal would be a single mom, a gay couple or two hippopotamus's raising that child.
When we write laws, we have to take the ideal into account. Since there is no biological difference between the races of man, an interracial couple may also be a part of the ideal.
Hopefully, this will address staccato and everyone else.

None of which has anything to do with denying legal marriage to same sex couples.

 

[flicka]

To late.

 

[jcook922]

Prop 8 writers may want to bring up the issue of gradeschool bullies and how they will cause grief, alcoholism and emotional devastation in the adult child of gay parents, but this is the incorrect route to take (it's a valid reason against raising kids in a gay household, but an incorrect approach nonetheless).
Prop 8 writers must continue sending artillery along the lines of procreation and send infantry along the lines of permitting only the ideal.

I see "permitting only the ideal" as too authoritarian. I believe in letting things take their own course, give people the responsibility to be irresponsible. Let people make mistakes so they can learn from them, instead of shackling them. If people want to be gay and it's a lifestyle that makes them happy, and doesn't effect me, then I really could care less, I know my family isn't really effected by it, and that when I have kids, I will steer them in what I consider the right direction as best I can, in this case raising some upright heterosexual and intelligent children. This doesn't mean I wouldn't love them if they ended up gay, however, I would be disappointed.

 

[Holy Roller]

Do you have any statistical evidence that children with homosexual parents face more bullying than children with heterosexual parents?

Do you have any statistical evidence that says I'll walk away from playing around in the middle of a shooting range unscathed?

 

[ZepHead16]

But if you go over to the I'd be exstatic to have a gay child thread, you'd realise that most the people who posted there are terrified of what schoolyard bullies and the like would do to their gay children.
This automatically presumes any "gayness" will be dealt with severely. That means taht any child reared in a gay household will have to face heretofore unknown and very substantial emotional abuse by his peers.
Thus, gay families can be thought of as a kind of child abuse.
Now let's get back on topic.

Are you honestly serious?

You do understand that the isolation of GLBT children, or children of GLBT people, are usually caused by people of religious convictions. This is why, in this instance, 'tolerance' is not some evil liberal conspiracy to make you accept other 'lifestyles'; it prevents violent and discriminatory behavior.

I mean, talk about creating the problem and marketing the solution. *I'm not saying you hate gay people, but vicious bullies need to be dealt with by other parents and counselors*

Other than this problem, GLBT people can raise children perfectly fine.

 

[Holy Roller]

I see "permitting only the ideal" as too authoritarian. I believe in letting things take their own course, give people the responsibility to be irresponsible. Let people make mistakes so they can learn from them, instead of shackling them. If people want to be gay and it's a lifestyle that makes them happy, and doesn't effect me, then I really could care less, I know my family isn't really effected by it, and that when I have kids, I will steer them in what I consider the right direction as best I can, in this case raising some upright heterosexual and intelligent children. This doesn't mean I wouldn't love them if they ended up gay, however, I would be disappointed.

But if you were asked your opinion on sailors using crystal methamphetmine while on duty, you'd be staunchly against it. Why? What harm are sailors on-ship using crystal at a command you're not even attached to going to hurt you?
You're in Iraq. Thay're crossing the South China sea. What harm are they causing you?
NONE! ZERO! ZIP! NADA!

 

[IzzyPop]

Do you have any statistical evidence that says I'll walk away from playing around in the middle of a shooting range unscathed?

That did not answer the question. Care to try again?

 

[Holy Roller]

GLBT people can raise children perfectly fine.

So can a chimpanzee mom and a chimpanzee dad if we train them...

 

[jcook922]

But if you were asked your opinion on sailors using crystal methamphetmine while on duty, you'd be staunchly against it. Why? What harm are sailors on-ship using crystal at a command you're not even attached to going to hurt you?
You're in Iraq. Thay're crossing the South China sea. What harm are they causing you?
NONE! ZERO! ZIP! NADA!

I don't trust anybody using meth when they control fighter planes, cannons, bombs, and small arms. Much less steering a ship. Despite popular opinion, being gay doesn't put people in physical danger or in danger of a reckless death in any way that a heterosexual person can't die as well. AIDS doesn't discriminate, and there are promiscuous straight and gay people.

 

[wanderingone]

I am to a degree agreeing with Lewis in saying 'Being in love' is a poor reason for marriage. Lewis went on to make clear that 'being in love' as he used it was talking about the sexual infatuatioon that occurs during courtship and is an emotional state that is rarely if ever maintained. It surely is something that at least to some degree waxes and wanes.

remember this was in Screwtape and Screwtape went on to say that his side was working on convincing humans that no longer 'being in love' was a valid reason to divorce.

BTW I could argue that my parents were still very much in love until my fathers death. I could argue the same for my mothers parents. But in both cases this love was something deeper than an emotional state.

Yes, and being in love is certainly something more than an emotional state for many - thus the desire to legally marry rather than do the "we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" thing. The fact is that in contemporary America most people are free to marry whoever they want. They aren't subject to being expected to join 2 communities, 2 families, 2 inheritences, they don't have the same "carry on the family name" demands of several generations ago.

Certainly the fact that marriage is about so many things other than being "in love" is pointed to in the fact that many people who are not straight have married people of the opposite sex not only because they are closeted, but because they truly want the partnership of marriage. Unfortunately that partnership without the "in love" romantic, erotic attraction generally cant' thrive because they aren't based for each person on the same attraction.

Marrying the person I want to marry certainly can include the syrupy romantic notions of soul mates and all that, but the desire to legally marry is also about not having to have potentially 1138 seperate legal arrangements for all the things that are automatically covered by by legal marriage.

Marriage has never been about a single thing (having children, being in love, complying with some religious mandate etc..etc..etc..) and it's still not. But no matter what it is about it should legally be available to people regardless of the gender of person they are attracted to and choose to share their life with.

 

[jcook922]

Yes, and being in love is certainly something more than an emotional state for many - thus the desire to legally marry rather than do the "we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" thing. The fact is that in contemporary America most people are free to marry whoever they want. They aren't subject to being expected to join 2 communities, 2 families, 2 inheritences, they don't have the same "carry on the family name" demands of several generations ago.

Certainly the fact that marriage is about so many things other than being "in love" is pointed to in the fact that many people who are not straight have married people of the opposite sex not only because they are closeted, but because they truly want the partnership of marriage. Unfortunately that partnership without the "in love" romantic, erotic attraction generally cant' thrive because they aren't based for each person on the same attraction.

Marrying the person I want to marry certainly can include the syrupy romantic notions of soul mates and all that, but the desire to legally marry is also about not having to have potentially 1138 seperate legal arrangements for all the things that are automatically covered by by legal marriage.

Marriage has never been about a single thing (having children, being in love, complying with some religious mandate etc..etc..etc..) and it's still not. But no matter what it is about it should legally be available to people regardless of the gender of person they are attracted to and choose to share their life with.

For me it's about partnership, I proposed to my girlfriend when I came back from the desert because she waited for me and kept in touch always, and that we're best friends and partners. The legal ramifications never really crossed my mind, I wanted to show my devotion publicly that she was the only person I wanted to be with.

Although my base housing allowance does go up when we get married.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So can a chimpanzee mom and a chimpanzee dad if we train them...

Not as well as human parents. The point, Holy Roller, is that same-sex parents are just as good (or indeed better) as their opposite-sex counterparts.

No matter what fears you have, no matter what armchair derivation you conjure up, the fact remains that children are no worse off being raised by same-sex parents than they are by opposite-sex ones.

So, just what is your opposition to same-sex parenting?

 

[wanderingone]

For me it's about partnership, I proposed to my girlfriend when I came back from the desert because she waited for me and kept in touch always, and that we're best friends and partners. The legal ramifications never really crossed my mind, I wanted to show my devotion publicly that she was the only person I wanted to be with.

Although my base housing allowance does go up when we get married.

The legal things don't have to cross your mind. They come without question. My cousin and his husband have a lawyer they consult for every single large purchase, insurance etc.. because there won't be any right of inheritence. There isn't any assumption that the other has any legal say in medical matters. For the most part in our area same sex couples wishes are pretty much respected, but once either person is too sick to make their wishes known, or has passed away it can be an entirely different nightmare.

When a supervisor at my old job was in the final stages of cancer her family proceeded to hire a lawyer and start work on taking over everything she owned. She had been with her girlfriend for 7 years. They did have a "domestic partnership" that gave the partner medical benefits from her job but it really doesn't cover anything else. They hadn't gotten the best legal help and 3 years after the death of that supervisor her girlfriend was still dealing with legal battles over various things she owned.

 

[keith99]

Yes, and being in love is certainly something more than an emotional state for many - thus the desire to legally marry rather than do the "we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love" thing. The fact is that in contemporary America most people are free to marry whoever they want. They aren't subject to being expected to join 2 communities, 2 families, 2 inheritences, they don't have the same "carry on the family name" demands of several generations ago.

Certainly the fact that marriage is about so many things other than being "in love" is pointed to in the fact that many people who are not straight have married people of the opposite sex not only because they are closeted, but because they truly want the partnership of marriage. Unfortunately that partnership without the "in love" romantic, erotic attraction generally cant' thrive because they aren't based for each person on the same attraction.

Marrying the person I want to marry certainly can include the syrupy romantic notions of soul mates and all that, but the desire to legally marry is also about not having to have potentially 1138 seperate legal arrangements for all the things that are automatically covered by by legal marriage.

Marriage has never been about a single thing (having children, being in love, complying with some religious mandate etc..etc..etc..) and it's still not. But no matter what it is about it should legally be available to people regardless of the gender of person they are attracted to and choose to share their life with.

Well said!

It seems the yes on 8 group does want to make marriage about one thing. I'm just not sure if it is procreation or keeping the gays out.

 

[wanderingone]

Well said!

It seems the yes on 8 group does want to make marriage about one thing. I'm just not sure if it is procreation or keeping the gays out.

I think it's fear of losing the power of being the majority. People get so anxious about what they know getting turned upside down. Sure it's about imposing their own values on secular life but I really believe the foundation is insecurity.

When things don't look like what they have always looked like, when the "rules" change people's little lives get turned upside down. So many choices, so many chances to be tempted, so many opportunities for me to go astray.. lions and tigers and bears oh my.

 

[katautumn]

I fail to understand what these people are protecting marriage from. Why are they so busy trying to protect from "the scary gay people" who pose zero threat to heterosexual marriages? Why aren't they trying to protect marriage from things that matter like financial struggles, domestic violence, marital rape, substance abuse problems, etc.? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that none of this has anything to do with marriage, in and of itself, rather being homophobic and discriminatory?

 

[Washington]

I fail to understand what these people are protecting marriage from.

They aren't. It's just a simple matter of

H O M O P H O B I A

​

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I am voting NO and also sending a donation the the No on 8 campaign.