Finally, some common sense in Washington! :toothless:

68Pontiac wrote: Free Radical,

There are a few points with this. . .however, I completely agree there are alot of incompitant parents out there.

First, before even tackling this issue, our society has taken a downturn. Single parents are on the rise, kids are sent to daycares because parents want more money, divorces are on the rise. . .which leads to broken families and households in disarray.

Simply put, our society is one crying for more "personal choice", but when they receive it horde it selfishly and irresponsibly.

Sex is one of these issues. It has become a recreational sport. People have lost the real reason for sex (procreation)and the responsiblities that come with it. It is one thing to have fun with sex, but always respecting the underline reasoning for it. . .and another to abuse it with wreckless abandon.

With that in mind, I don't approve of gay sexual acts. . .I don't hate gay people, or have anything against them. . .but the act is unnatural. It goes against the reason for sex (procreation).

Having children exposed to this at an early age, gives an irresponsible veiw of sexual acts.

Another point is that women and men are not equal; neither are subservant; but they are different, and for good reason. You stated you have children, and if you have a girl and a boy I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The same goes for parenting. Both the father and mother bring something different to the table. The way the father and mother act is directly related to being male/female. A good, balanced child needs both sides. If a child has double of one side, does not make up for the void of the other half needed.

Also, children work best when guidelines and boundries are clearcut and known. Having two fathers or mothers only confuses the child. If one tries to be the other, it will be fine for the child until he / she reaches school. When all the other kids parents are male-father/female-mother; and their's is different. . .it WILL effect them.

Now comes the acceptance that society is in a downturn and the thought. . .well everyone is alreay f***ed up, and the effects aren't THAT bad compared to a broken home. So instead of society working the REAL issue, we make it more difficult to fix.

I know this isn't the "feel-good" answer. . .which is what our society wants anymore. Everyone wants to make decisions that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. . .which is why our society is in such disrepair. . .so many of the responsible decisions we need to make aren't fun, they downright suck. . .but no one wants to be responsible anymore.

JHC

I used to think there was something to that view, about needing a father and a mother, but I've changed my mind. In my opinion its the parental roles that matter, not the biological gender. A child needs parents who are balanced between being oriented domestically and towards the outside world. Whether this is one parent staying at home and one going out to work, or both sharing the roles, and what sex each is isn't that important.

I don't buy the argument that says its unfair on the child because of the attitudes of the outside world, or because they will 'feel different' - it seems to me that's like saying Jews shouldn't have kids because there are anti-semites out there or that other kids won't have Jewish parents.

My Name Is John Barnes wrote: Maybe we should just kill all the Americans...

that would solve the problem, no?

?? :confused3:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: FWith that in mind, I don't approve of gay sexual acts. . .I don't hate gay people, or have anything against them. . .but the act is unnatural. It goes against the reason for sex (procreation).

Presumably, then, you're also against oral sex, anal sex, handjobs, and contraceptives and the rhythm method?

For that matter, listening to music 'goes against the reason' for having ears. We didn't evolve hearing for the purpose of enjoying music.

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Gay marriage isn't about exposing children to sex acts, 68, any more than your marriage is about exposing children to sex acts. I presume that, like most parents, you keep it in the bedroom?

Keeping it in the bedroom only last so long. Eventually the children realize what is happening, and you'd be amazed at the early age they realize this stuff.

Man, you gotta get the trapeze out of the bedroom...

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Gay marriage isn't about having children, 68. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage is about spouses having rights like survivorship, visitation rights in the hosipital, etc.

Like I mentioned before, I have no issues with gay marriage as long as there is no children involved.

JHC

You're missing the point. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage isn't about "children involved." Children are already involved, whether gay people are married or not. Gay marriage is about survivorship rights. It's about visitation rights. It's about paying the same rates on things like car insurance and taxes that hetero couples pay. It's about the legal rights that come with marriage. It's not about children-- Gay marriage changes nothing in regards to children.

404 error wrote:

68Pontiac wrote: Free Radical,

There are a few points with this. . .however, I completely agree there are alot of incompitant parents out there.

First, before even tackling this issue, our society has taken a downturn. Single parents are on the rise, kids are sent to daycares because parents want more money, divorces are on the rise. . .which leads to broken families and households in disarray.

Simply put, our society is one crying for more "personal choice", but when they receive it horde it selfishly and irresponsibly.

Sex is one of these issues. It has become a recreational sport. People have lost the real reason for sex (procreation)and the responsiblities that come with it. It is one thing to have fun with sex, but always respecting the underline reasoning for it. . .and another to abuse it with wreckless abandon.

With that in mind, I don't approve of gay sexual acts. . .I don't hate gay people, or have anything against them. . .but the act is unnatural. It goes against the reason for sex (procreation).

Having children exposed to this at an early age, gives an irresponsible veiw of sexual acts.

Another point is that women and men are not equal; neither are subservant; but they are different, and for good reason. You stated you have children, and if you have a girl and a boy I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

The same goes for parenting. Both the father and mother bring something different to the table. The way the father and mother act is directly related to being male/female. A good, balanced child needs both sides. If a child has double of one side, does not make up for the void of the other half needed.

Also, children work best when guidelines and boundries are clearcut and known. Having two fathers or mothers only confuses the child. If one tries to be the other, it will be fine for the child until he / she reaches school. When all the other kids parents are male-father/female-mother; and their's is different. . .it WILL effect them.

Now comes the acceptance that society is in a downturn and the thought. . .well everyone is alreay f***ed up, and the effects aren't THAT bad compared to a broken home. So instead of society working the REAL issue, we make it more difficult to fix.

I know this isn't the "feel-good" answer. . .which is what our society wants anymore. Everyone wants to make decisions that make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. . .which is why our society is in such disrepair. . .so many of the responsible decisions we need to make aren't fun, they downright suck. . .but no one wants to be responsible anymore.

JHC

I used to think there was something to that view, about needing a father and a mother, but I've changed my mind. In my opinion its the parental roles that matter, not the biological gender. A child needs parents who are balanced between being oriented domestically and towards the outside world. Whether this is one parent staying at home and one going out to work, or both sharing the roles, and what sex each is isn't that important.

I don't buy the argument that says its unfair on the child because of the attitudes of the outside world, or because they will 'feel different' - it seems to me that's like saying Jews shouldn't have kids because there are anti-semites out there or that other kids won't have Jewish parents.

I think children do need both male and female nurtureres/role models in their lives. The solution that many couples come up with is to have those nurturers/role models in their lives. Before she met her husband, my best friend planned on being a single mother, and asked me to be a male role model for her baby. In fact, now that her baby has a father, she still wants me to be there as a role model for her baby. Gay couples do the same thing-- gay male couples bring women into he family, and lesbian couples bring men into the family.

As far as being unfair to the child, children from gay marriages-- that's what they are, after all-- grow up to be well-adjusted, tolerant adults, something we need more of in this world.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Man, you gotta get the trapeze out of the bedroom...

Actually that reminds me, when I was about 7 I found something attached to my parents curtian rod. Don't remember what it was, but when I asked my Dad about it, he got red and told me he'd explain it later when I was older. Never asked, as I'm afraid of what the answer would be.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: You're missing the point. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage isn't about "children involved." Children are already involved, whether gay people are married or not. Gay marriage is about survivorship rights. It's about visitation rights. It's about paying the same rates on things like car insurance and taxes that hetero couples pay. It's about the legal rights that come with marriage. It's not about children-- Gay marriage changes nothing in regards to children.

I understand that the current political arguement does not include children, I'm only stating my stance on the topic, which my point of veiw does include the children.

i realize they already have rights to adopt children. Rosie O'Donnol is one that has a boy (about 11 yrs old I think). Somehow I was forced to watch a couple of her shows (hate the pompous B**ch), and in all these shows I watched she complained about the problems she was having with her "son". All the problems I could see had the answer "no s***, he needs a father!", but she refused to see this as the problem.

IF they do bring in role models as you suggest, that might help (though I would question the stability of that relationship with the child), however I don't see people being that proactive with children. Good example of a similar problem is the ADD epidemic. Almost all the children I have known that are on Riddlen come from a newly divorced family. Instead of the parents noticing the issue with thier children, they claim their child is fine with the divorce, pump the kid full of drugs, and claim it's the disease of ADD that is the problem.

I'll also be a bit honest that some of my adomosity about gays, is how there is such an in-your-face push for acceptance. I'm a bit tired of how so many are going around saying "hey look at me I'm gay!!!!" I'm not asking for them to be closet-cases, just act like regular human beings about it. I don't act so well when I'm being pushed.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Man, you gotta get the trapeze out of the bedroom...

Actually that reminds me, when I was about 7 I found something attached to my parents curtian rod. Don't remember what it was, but when I asked my Dad about it, he got red and told me he'd explain it later when I was older. Never asked, as I'm afraid of what the answer would be.

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: You're missing the point. Gay people already have children. Gay marriage isn't about "children involved." Children are already involved, whether gay people are married or not. Gay marriage is about survivorship rights. It's about visitation rights. It's about paying the same rates on things like car insurance and taxes that hetero couples pay. It's about the legal rights that come with marriage. It's not about children-- Gay marriage changes nothing in regards to children.

I understand that the current political arguement does not include children, I'm only stating my stance on the topic, which my point of veiw does include the children.

i realize they already have rights to adopt children.

They also have biological children.

68Pontiac wrote: Rosie O'Donnol is one that has a boy (about 11 yrs old I think). Somehow I was forced to watch a couple of her shows (hate the pompous B**ch), and in all these shows I watched she complained about the problems she was having with her "son". All the problems I could see had the answer "no s***, he needs a father!", but she refused to see this as the problem.

IF they do bring in role models as you suggest, that might help (though I would question the stability of that relationship with the child), however I don't see people being that proactive with children. Good example of a similar problem is the ADD epidemic. Almost all the children I have known that are on Riddlen come from a newly divorced family. Instead of the parents noticing the issue with thier children, they claim their child is fine with the divorce, pump the kid full of drugs, and claim it's the disease of ADD that is the problem.

I'll also be a bit honest that some of my adomosity about gays, is how there is such an in-your-face push for acceptance. I'm a bit tired of how so many are going around saying "hey look at me I'm gay!!!!" I'm not asking for them to be closet-cases, just act like regular human beings about it. I don't act so well when I'm being pushed.

JHC

I've got ADD and my parents were married for life.

I agree with you about the in-your-face public sexual displays. It's so not necessary. Straights keep some things behind closed doors, and being gay shouldn't mean doing whatever you want in public. That being said, Comrade suddenly remembers that sex on the beach isn't just a drink...