California Overturns Gay Marriage

It would certainly be a better outcome for the child if they had two normal parents. After all that is what is wanted, the best outcome for the child.

Single parents, don't have the abnormality of two same sex parents either.
 
Last edited:
Guys ..........
Now that I have straightened out where I was coming from with my comments ... I have to say that I somewhat agree that it is better for a child to have a 'normal' heterosexual set of parents. Not because the loving environment of the home is somehow missing ... but ... because of society's seeming dichotomy when it comes to a gay couple raising a child.

The reality of the situation, is a gay couple is as able to raise as healthy and happy child as a heterosexual couple or a single parent. The other reality, is the fact that there are some people who just won't take the time to look at these "truths" ... either because they ARE homophobic (or) are brainwashed with religious dogma (and 'can' cause problems for a child).

Before you go up in arms again, I am speaking in general terms.
​

There ARE some people (for other reasons), who are against a gay couple raising a child just for general purposes or reasons.
 
Last edited:
If we want normal children, it is only right that those children should have every chance at having a normal upbringing.

And before you ask. Normal = not abnormal.

It's as simple as that.
 
senojekips said:
If we want normal children, it is only right that those children should have every chance at having a normal upbringing.

And before you ask. Normal = not abnormal.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

What the ?????????????????????????????????????????????
 
senojekips said:
It would certainly be a better outcome for the child if they had two normal parents. After all that is what is wanted, the best outcome for the child.

Single parents, don't have the abnormality of two same sex parents either.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back this argument, in fact most of the studies I have seen say that there is no noticeable difference in the physiological and emotional development in children raised by gay couples compared to heterosexual couples.

Also for the record I call these people Gay not because I am politically correct but because I am too damn lazy to type homosexual every 5th word.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
If we want normal children, it is only right that those children should have every chance at having a normal upbringing.

And before you ask. Normal = not abnormal.

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Not sure what on earth this has to do with anything, but I agree.

I think.
 
Chief Bones said:
What the ?????????????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...
Today it seems that someone is always complaining about out kids not having decent values. So now it appears some of us suddenly have a problem understanding what social norms are????

TOG Wanting a normal society has everything to do with everything I can think of.

It's all about "normal" society and socially acceptable behaviour

I included that line in my post because if I had not, someone would have been sure to have said, "What do you consider Normal"

Normal adj. & n. That accepted by the majority.
 
Last edited:
No because it's a topic where political correctness clashes with pragmatism.
And it tends to get very heated.
I really don't know of any serious psychological society that believes homosexual parents are ideal for raising children. Nor do we have a confirming that all gay people are indeed gay by nature and not by choice. Like I said before, I knew a lot of gay dudes in DC (because there are so many there) and one of my roommates was a totally normal guy until he decided to go gay. Seriously. The transformation was complete and total and it was obvious he had put in a lot of effort to try to be the "typical" gay man. Just months before this guy struck me as a typical obnoxious Rhode Islander with a thick Rhode Island accent. Then boom, he decides to go gay and the Rhode Island accent is gone and the gay accent is in. How is it possible that gays have their own accent? Don't tell me the accent changes when some hormone kicks in saying "Let's be gay!"
I know several of you have worked with or been friends with gay people but just how many have had to live with them? I had two gay roommates (this is why I believe in God... the twisted sense of humor of his) of which one was probably really gay and this new "convert" so to say, didn't convince me. Seemed more like a bit of a pervert exploring something new.
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
No because it's a topic where political correctness clashes with pragmatism.
And it tends to get very heated.
I really don't know of any serious psychological society that believes homosexual parents are ideal for raising children. Nor do we have a confirming that all gay people are indeed gay by nature and not by choice. Like I said before, I knew a lot of gay dudes in DC (because there are so many there) and one of my roommates was a totally normal guy until he decided to go gay. Seriously. The transformation was complete and total and it was obvious he had put in a lot of effort to try to be the "typical" gay man. Just months before this guy struck me as a typical obnoxious Rhode Islander with a thick Rhode Island accent. Then boom, he decides to go gay and the Rhode Island accent is gone and the gay accent is in. How is it possible that gays have their own accent? Don't tell me the accent changes when some hormone kicks in saying "Let's be gay!"
I know several of you have worked with or been friends with gay people but just how many have had to live with them? I had two gay roommates (this is why I believe in God... the twisted sense of humor of his) of which one was probably really gay and this new "convert" so to say, didn't convince me. Seemed more like a bit of a pervert exploring something new.
Click to expand...

I think you are assuming your reality is actual reality though, why is it politically correct to say that ALL men are created equal, should it be amended to say All straight men are created equal?

I have yet to see one solid fact why giving gay couples equal rights is a bad idea, I have heard moral reasons which in reality are purely subjective and for many more an indication of closed minded dogma, I have heard religious reasons which are no different in fact I find it ironic that an institution that preaches tolerance is the primary institute leading the segregation charge.

It is a lifestyle that I simply don't understand and as such creeps me out but so do thousands of lifestyle choices around the world from religious to political and yet because it does not affect me it does not concern me, I still stand by the argument that:
1) Churches should be allowed to marry who ever they like.
2) Gays should be allowed to marry who ever they like but not where ever they like, see point 1.
3) It should all be recognised by the state as legal.
 
Play it again Sam .................

MontyB said:
I think you are assuming your reality is actual reality though, why is it politically correct to say that ALL men are created equal, should it be amended to say All straight men are created equal?

I have yet to see one solid fact why giving gay couples equal rights is a bad idea, I have heard moral reasons which in reality are purely subjective and for many more an indication of closed minded dogma, I have heard religious reasons which are no different in fact I find it ironic that an institution that preaches tolerance is the primary institute leading the segregation charge.

It is a lifestyle that I simply don't understand and as such creeps me out but so do thousands of lifestyle choices around the world from religious to political and yet because it does not affect me it does not concern me, I still stand by the argument that:
1) Churches should be allowed to marry who ever they like.
2) Gays should be allowed to marry who ever they like but not where ever they like, see point 1.
3) It should all be recognised by the state as legal.
Click to expand...

I bloody well agree with your commentary Monty. Play it again Sam ....

1) Churches should be allowed to marry who ever they like.
2) Gays should be allowed to marry who ever they like but not where ever they like, see point 1.
3) It should all be recognised by the state as legal.



IT CAN BE CHISELED IN STONE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.
​
 
MontyB, I don't think the reasons I gave were really moral.

And I actually didn't oppose a legal union of gay partners. I just said they should not be entitled to many of the monetary benefits designed to encourage straight couples to have children. If two people of the same sex wish to be recognized as next of kin then fine.
Whether or not they should be allowed to adopt and raise children is a different matter entirely.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
MontyB, I don't think the reasons I gave were really moral.

And I actually didn't oppose a legal union of gay partners. I just said they should not be entitled to many of the monetary benefits designed to encourage straight couples to have children. If two people of the same sex wish to be recognized as next of kin then fine.
Whether or not they should be allowed to adopt and raise children is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...

To be honest I see a lot of dancing around an issue to avoid having to make a logical decision:
We apparently wont recognise a gay marriage because that might give financial benefit and the benefit is to induce married couples to have kids in a world were we actively encourage birth control however we will give all the financial benefits of marriage to married couples without kids because it would be unfair if we didn't.

With this logic it isn't hard to see why we end up with big government.

If two people of the same sex wish to be recognized as next of kin then fine.
Click to expand...

Weird apparently I am gay as my "official" next of kin is my brother.
 
I think the debate is going "skew whiff" here whether by accident or design I don't know. I seem to be the one arguing that we should not recognise same sex marriages because I believe they are only doing it to gain financial benefit meant for those who are reproducing. And I do that in this case for no other reason than the fact that we already have enough freeloaders trying to get access to handouts with no legitimate reason.

If they wish to be legally recognised for the purposes of probate etc, and not receive the monies paid to hetero "Married" couples, find another name for this union as it would in my mind besmirch the institution of marriage.

My reason for saying this being that I want no part of being in a "Marriage" that could be associated with Homosexuals, it makes the very word a joke. The whole issue of marriage for homosexuals is no more than another costly exercise in political correctness that will one day turn to bite us on the bum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top