'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

reply to post by Kevin_X2


When have I once bashed any group of people on here other than maybe zoophiles? Just because you twist words in your mind to turn something meant to show the possiblity of something into some form of hate speech doesnt mean I am the one with the problem. I am not even against gay people having civil unions, I am just against allowing marriage to become redifinable based on the whims of society or the political clout of some minority group of the population.

reply to post by grapesofraft


What it should be, as far as the state is concerned, is a legal union between two consenting adults. This excludes the pedophiles, the sick fraks who diddle family, the poligamists, practitioners of beastiality, etc. etc. etc. That's what it really boils down to. Two concenting adults should not be barred from the same right afforded to other concenting adults.

reply to post by Kevin_X2


Well I am pretty sure I do not hate homosexuals. One of my closest friends is gay and religious. He came to me once saying he was:
1. Gay
2. In a gay relationship for years
3. Broke it off because he thought it was against his religious views
4. Miserable because he broke it off

So I told him to go back and try to fix things with the guy, because he might as well be happy. So if that is anti-gay, gay hating, or whatever then I am guilty as charged.
Also, just for the record, I support the rights for gay couples to have the legal protections of shared property, etc that married couples do.

I dont support redifining marriage to make it fit, or making it legal for gay couples to go out and produce children artificially just because they think they have a right to one.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


See Jaxon this is where it gets sticky. If we make marriage redifinable why not make it inclusive of polygamists lets just say. I mean we all have a natural tendency to have feelings for more than one person in our lifetimes. So why should we limit marriage to just 2 people?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Captain Obvious

 

Condescending claptrap!!!

You are obviously educated and erudite, yet you intentionally deflect from obvious alternatives available other than direct sperm/egg insemination.

So then the implication is that homosexuality is only passed on to future generations through modern science? Still, no matter which way you cut it, homosexual couples can not have babies without involving a member of the opposite sex. Thus genetic homosexuality is still an impossibility even with modern science.

In this light does this study or survey really have any scientific basis? A study of children whose parents wanted to indirectly have a sexual experience with the opposite sex. Washing their hands of the deed like Pontius Pilate at Jesus' crucifixion. "I am removed from the opposite sex by modern science, thus I am a homosexual and my children are gay babies, ('Gaybys' per the thread title)." It's no surprise that the article's only scientific reference is the American Psychological Association. This seems to me to be more about one's mental state than physical state of being.

"Your kids are gay". An insult or a compliment? What an amusing quandary.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Captain Obvious]

reply to post by grapesofraft


I've been married, ONE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH!!! Personally, I have no problem with poligamy, except that it seem masocistic to me!!! Actually, in regards to the Mormons, I think that denying poligamy to them is a violation of the separation of church and state. Again, consenting adults.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Ahh very good answer, and I agree having been married once before that marriage can be masochistic

Ok now lets expand it. Lets say that a guy wants to marry his dog. Should we allow that? A dog shouldnt have to give consent since it is the mans property.

reply to post by grapesofraft


No, because both parties are not consenting, and one of the parties lacks the ability to consent. This would equally apply to pedophiles. The reasons for denying incestuous relationships is biological. The risk for birth defects increases exponetially.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Ok for incest lets say it is a grown man who wants to marry his father. There is no risk of birth defects there, so should we allow that.

Also, you could make a legal case that a dog doesnt need to give consent. A dog doesnt need to give consent when you take it to the vet to have it operated on.

And as far as pedophiles go.. in some parts of the world it is perfectly legal for a man say 50 to marry a girl say 12 or 13.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft


In the first case, they are already each others next of kin, so it would be redundant.

In the second case, only a legal human adult can enter into a legal arrangement, which is what we are talking about.

For those who do not think that marriage is a legal arrangement, then why does it take a lawyer to get out of it??? (not necessarily aimed at you, grapes)

Originally posted by grapesofraft

Originally posted by Kevin_X2

I have said what I wanted to say, you are just incapable of hearing it for whatever reason.

So lets say they REDIFINE marriage to include gay couples. What is the legal basis for doing that? Because gay people think they have a right to redifine marriage or because gayness is genetic? What is the reasoning behind redifining it? Answer that and I will then give you my answer.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

What was the "legal" basis for defining it as solely between a man and a woman in the first place? If you are agreeing that this is a legal matter and not a religious one you should be able to see where denying the rights of two consenting adults in favor of the rights of two other consenting creates a legal connundrum. A key word here by the way is consent. That is what keeps the pedophiles and animals out of marriage. Also, if there is a child that is truely in a loving relationship with an adult then the question of marriage (and sex) becomes a simple matter of time and patience.

reply to post by grapesofraft


go ahead and beat and sit on the dog that is "your property" and see where you end up. Its not a peice of property, and taking it to the vet is doing nothing but good for it. If marrying a dog will prolong its life, havater. Concenting adults is really the only issue here. two rationally minded fully developed individuals making a commitment to eachother under the religious ideals in which they were raised, regardless of the opinion of the dwindelling conservative sects.

and i will agree with the above poster, i have no problem with poligamy as long as the large number of men/women dont feel like their in prison.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Kevin_X2]

Originally posted by Syphon
What was the "legal" basis for defining it as solely between a man and a woman in the first place?

The state (government) recognizes the relationship of a man and woman as a legal contract due to the possibility that there may be children created from this contract. Children are of interest to the state because they are the only means of the continuation of the state, country.

Will all marriages produce children? We could have the same argument about lottery tickets. Will all lottery tickets produce winners? No, but the ONLY way to win is to obtain a ticket. In like manner, the ONLY way to have children is a male-female union.

Why does the state care when children can be created outside of marriage? It's primary concern is the well-being of the child. The contract helps to ensure the proper raising and financial support of the child. Imagine a country where men impregnated women and just abandoned them. Women need support while pregnant and nursing a young infant at the very least. Unless the state wishes to have half of it citizens on welfare, it's best to create contracts between the people who could have children.

Why should the state support the overly expensive method of producing children artificially when they can just draw up contracts and have it done naturally. One could argue that homosexuals having children was not environmentally friendly. Think of all the wasted effort and energy put into what can be accomplished for free.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Right I agree that right now marriage is limited to legal human adults. However right now it is also limited to 1 man and 1 woman. So see how once we allow it to become redifinable then it opens it up to being redefined to any configuration?

So right now it is 1 man and 1 woman.
Then it changes to 2 adults regardless of sex.

What stops it from going further to say 1 adult and 1 piece of his property, say a dog or his favorite car. You know there are nuts out there that will fight for this.

reply to post by Syphon


But if they are consenting, the adult and a child, and they are in a trully loving relationship then what right to we have to say they shouldnt be allowed to marry now. What if one of them dies before they both are of a legal age?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Also it is not a matter of redundancy in the man and his father scenario.. what if they just want the right to go around and say they are married and to be treated as a couple?

reply to post by Syphon


This is why I am for taking marriage out of the hands of government and leaving it in the hands of the religions that created the concept. I think the government should just create civil unions for everyone instead of marriage.

reply to post by grapesofraft


I agree with you 100%. I think it should not be marriage, cause that IS a religious institution, but they we should still be allowed the same benefits under Civil Unions.

~Keeper

reply to post by grapesofraft


Actually, it is an institution created by ancient societies and adopted by religions. As for the father/son scenario, I'd refer them to a good psychologist!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


So why in your mind is it right to stop at homosexual marriage. Dont the gay father and son have just as much right to marry? We have already established that having a homosexual relationship doesnt make a person mentally ill like they used to think.