Gay marriage issue

[John56{vg}]

Sorry Louise, i wasn't criticizing your post at all. But I do believe Any parents are better than none.

I do think that there are still a lot of great kids to adopt within thsi country. But the celebrity adoption craze is just a bit silly I think.

[TomOfSweden]

Oh, Tom. You are underestimating the power the all mighty dollar has on business in America. From the Kaiser Family Foundation, here's a stat for you. "Annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance for 2006 average $4,242 for single coverage and $11,480 for family coverage. Employees contribute an average of $627 annually for single coverage and $2,973 annually for family coverage, with significant variation around these averages. Legalize gay marriage, have all the gay employees sign up for their now rightful benefits, and a company of 5000 employees is looking at an estimated additional 2.5 million dollars in insurance costs. (and I used a very conservative 5% homosexual population to figure that cost...go with 10% as some studies suggest, and that's almost 5 million dollars!)

If a company can keep even one of those dollars for themselves as opposed to using it on the workforce, they will. Period. And you think that's an argument that won't hold up?? Money matters. And if keeping gay marriage from being legal will save big business big money, you'd better believe that they will do whatever it takes to keep it status quo where gays are concerned.

I think you're wrong. My point is that it is blatant oppression of a minority. Compare it to Blacks. If blacks only where able to make couples but not get married, just because we don't want them to access the same benefits as everybody else. I don't believe it's about the money at all. Anybody bringing up the "power of the all mighty dollar", would get stoned to death in a situation like that. It's only about the repression, not money. US companies have a state sanctioned right to pick on Gays. That's why they aren't paying out money. It's not the other way around.

We aren't repressing you in any way. We are encouraging your ass in every way possible! And what jeanne said, "goodwill" and all.

I'm just kidding. Feel free to ogle.

[TomOfSweden]

John: you needn't think I haven't heard some of those arguments before. The point I'm making isn't that gay men (or a lesbian couple) would be the wrong kind of parents, only that international adoption is, now and in the near future, the wrong way to arrange that. And well, full adoption of non-relative kids within one rich country hardly exists anymore. (I'm totally okay with insemination, while surrogate mothering has special problems)

Besides, I don't think you can compete in being a good parent. The point of my argument is about not putting the adopted child, who's already had a difficult first few years, in a too vulnerable position.

Just as Natalie pointed out. Orphanages are full of children. Your argument Louise only holds up if having gay parents would be a worse experience than not having any parents at all.

And on top of that I don't believe you. Young children don't understand homosexuality. They pick on each other for anything, and nothing. As far as issues are concerned it's totally random. I've a close friend who has children from a earlier relationship and is now in a lesbian relationship. Her kids are extremely popular in their school, and have always been. They have no contact with their father.

[TomOfSweden]

Alright, the new forum god does have an opinion on this.

As many of you might know, if you've read Alex's interview with me, that I've married twice; both times were to women. The idea of marrying a man is loathe to me.

But, having said that, if two men or two women want to get married, I don't care! My position is basically what Kerry said in the debates with Bush. To me, marriage is between a man and a woman, but who am I to say that two people of the same gender ought not enter into the institution of marriage.

The government, religion, or any other group should keep their noses out of people's private lives.

Okay, that's my take,
DM

You put the spotlight on another bullshit issue with gay marriage. If a man is against gay marriage, all they need to do is to not marry another man. I don't see the difficulty in this. Why extend it to include other people. If I don't like bananas, I'd never want to pass laws forbidding anybody to eat banana.

[gagged_Louise]

With all due respect NatalieD, that's just a kind of clamp-down "stopper argument", much like when the US gov't is meeting the wave of criticism during four years of an ill-fated war in Iraq by saying "Would you want to live in a Taliban state? We toppled Saddam and the Talibans and that justifies everything"

[TomOfSweden]

With all due respect NatalieD, that's just a kind of clamp-down "stopper argument", much like when the US gov't is meeting the wave of criticism during four years of an ill-fated war in Iraq by saying "Would you want to live in a Taliban state? We toppled Saddam and the Talibans and that justifies everything"

That comparison doesn't work. You're whole argument hinges on the kids being picked on in school if their parents are gay. It's an assumption based on nothing I've ever seen or experienced. Today there are plenty of kids growing up with gay parents and there's no problems. There's also plenty of kids who have embarrassing straight parents.

And then on top of this, who cares? Even if they'd been picked on in school, they'd at least have a family. Going back to your original comparison, I think that people would rather live under Taliban rule than not at all. It's just being human.

[gagged_Louise]

That comparison doesn't work. You're whole argument hinges on the kids being picked on in school if their parents are gay. It's an assumption based on nothing I've ever seen or experienced. Today there are plenty of kids growing up with gay parents and there's no problems. There's also plenty of kids who have embarrassing straight parents.

And then on top of this, who cares? Even if they'd been picked on in school, they'd at least have a family. Going back to your original comparison, I think that people would rather live under Taliban rule than not at all. It's just being human.

No, my argument is not just about kids being exposed to bullying for their parents being gay, but about the fact that this would add on, melt together with the fact that they are definitely outside, out-of-the-ordinary, just by virtue of what they look like (and they can't change neither of those factors) One plus one becomes bigger than two. You may say "Who cares?" but the child can't say that.

Maybe you haven't seen bullying of that kind but I have, many of us have. I really don't think one can ask school kids - kids in general - to make a reasoned moral stand of their own in a question of this kind, where adult society is still very divided and full of people who would prefer that all gay and lesbians be "unprogrammed" or locked up in a monastery and "forced to eat some cock". Kids pick up on what's around them, on the talk of the town, and they are far from consistent. We can't use kids as a battering ram to break down adult prejudice (I also think it's, by and large, unfair to bring along kids as props in highly charged peace manifestations).

Is it "worse to be in an adopting family and getting bullied than living in a war-torn country in Africa"? First off, I think we shouldn't flatly put down the countries these children come from. Many of them want to keep ties with thier biological origin, even their bio mother, as they fgrow up. And the child doesn't really compare her "old life as it would have been" with what they get being adopted - they don't experience it that way nor should they. One can't say that one bad condition (being bullied all through many school years and getting badly scarred) is justified or somehow okay by invoking "well if you'd stayed at home you 'd probably have had your foot blown off by a landmine,seen your mother and sister get raped and you'd have to starve". Yes, those kinds of things happen in the cruel reality of Congo or Colombia, but that doesn't mean everything that might happen to the same children here in a rich Western country is nice and acceptable to them.

[TomOfSweden]

No, my argument is not just about kids being exposed to bullying for their parents being gay, but about the fact that this would add on, melt together with the fact that they are definitely outside, out-of-the-ordinary, just by virtue of what they look like (and they can't change neither of those factors) One plus one becomes bigger than two. You may say "Who cares?" but the child can't say that.

Maybe you haven't seen bullying of that kind but I have, many of us have. I really don't think one can ask school kids - kids in general - to make a reasoned moral stand of their own in a question of this kind, where adult society is still very divided and full of people who would prefer that all gay and lesbians be "unprogrammed" or locked up in a monastery and "forced to eat some cock". Kids pick up on what's around them, on the talk of the town, and they are far from consistent. We can't use kids as a battering ram to break down adult prejudice (I also think it's, by and large, unfair to bring along kids as props in highly charged peace manifestations).

Is it "worse to be in an adopting family and getting bullied than living in a war-torn country in Africa"? First off, I think we shouldn't flatly put down the countries these children come from. Many of them want to keep ties with thier biological origin, even their bio mother, as they fgrow up. And the child doesn't really compare her "old life as it would have been" with what they get being adopted - they don't experience it that way nor should they. One can't say that one bad condition (being bullied all through many school years and getting badly scarred) is justified or somehow okay by invoking "well if you'd stayed at home you 'd probably have had your foot blown off by a landmine,seen your mother and sister get raped and you'd have to starve". Yes, those kinds of things happen in the cruel reality of Congo or Colombia, but that doesn't mean everything that might happen to the same children here in a rich Western country is nice and acceptable to them.

I'd say your line of reasoning is teetering on the edge of absurd. Your assumption that kids with homosexual parents will get or will very likely get picked on is based on what exactly? The fact that it doesn't seem to happen any more to kids with homosexual parents than other kids doesn't seem to phase you? Dan Savage, a famous columnist and gay parent has talked a lot about in in his column.

Homosexuals tend congregate in areas which are more homosexually friendly. I'd say that the chances of a gay couple that want to adopt living in one of these gay friendly enclaves is pretty much close to 100%. You live in one. Could you seriously imagine a kid in Stockholm being picked on specifically because his or her parents are gay?

You're basically saying that if we eliminate any surface differences between kids then bullying will stop or be minimized. Beside it being reprehensible on moral grounds I think it is wrong.

When I was little I went to an international school. We picked on a Malaysian muslim girl. Our school had a wide variety of kikes, wops, niggers and coons to put it humorously. Nobody was in a position where they where in any way stranger than anybody else, no matter religion, skin colour or ethnicity. My best friend for years was straight out the Ugandan jungle. The reason we picked on her wasn't because she was dark skinned, muslim or any of the other ethic minority features she had. It was simply because she was socially inept. She didn't have the social skills to become popular. She still doesn't. I met her at a class get together a while back. She'd fixed everything we picked on her for, her weight among other things, and her nose. But those where just things we said to hurt her, it wasn't the real reason for her torment. I'm pretty sure we didn't even realise what they it at the time. My point being is that I don't think the stated reason for bullying is ever the real reason.

I'm not saying we had any justification to be as cruel as we where, just what it was based on. And I'm not saying that all people who get bullied get bullied for the same reason this girl was. This was a long rant about that kids are really cruel and there's not much you can do about that. I don't think there's any way to eliminate bullies.

Considering that all young primates pick on who ever is perceived as the weak I think chances are pretty good that bullying is an inbuilt feature in the human race. It may be just another one of our inherited monkey instincts. I'm sure nobody past their teens truly believe children are born with some kind of innocence. Evil little egotistical blighters the lot of 'em But cute, I'll give them that.

edit: And this is also another subject all together. It's in no way related to the gay marriage issue.

[tessa]

It's only about the repression, not money.

It's about repression AND money. And I'm not wrong.

I'm just kidding. Feel free to ogle.

Like we needed your permission.

[jeanne]

Like we needed your permission.

Oooohh, tessa - living dangerously these days, aren't you? BTW, I agree.

[TomOfSweden]

Like we needed your permission.

You do if you want to see more of it

[tessa]

You do if you want to see more of it

Touche. Well done! But you knew that already.

And jeanne, I have an ocean, plus a few large bodies of land, that help me live so dangerously when it comes to Tom. Something tells me that face-to-face with him, though, would be a true lesson in "living dangerously".

tessa

[jeanne]

And jeanne, I have an ocean, plus a few large bodies of land, that help me live so dangerously when it comes to Tom. Something tells me that face-to-face with him, though, would be a true lesson in "living dangerously".

tessa

I completely agree - explaining why telling him face-to-face that I'd like to take a bite would never, ever, ever happen!

[TomOfSweden]

Touche. Well done! But you knew that already.

And jeanne, I have an ocean, plus a few large bodies of land, that help me live so dangerously when it comes to Tom. Something tells me that face-to-face with him, though, would be a true lesson in "living dangerously".

tessa

But I'm such a harmless weedle bunny

[Dorkalicious]

This topic honestly makes me sad. I myself have looked at it and thought, "You know. We are supposedly a free country, but we have so many restrictions. We are so conservative, and censored it's ridiculous."

The problem with my train of thought is that my instant answer is to move to another country -- But other countries have problems too. I guess I'll just have to inherit a shit ton of money and buy an island somewhere....

[John56{vg}]

Well,please take me with you D'licious one. It is sad and I don't know the answer sweet. I love this country and yet I see we are in the throes of a vicious tyranny.

ANd the worst thing is I am not gonna be here too much longer (30 or so years), but for you young people if this continues I don't know what kind of America we will have.

[Warbaby1943]

Well,please take me with you D'licious one. It is sad and I don't know the answer sweet. I love this country and yet I see we are in the throes of a vicious tyranny.

ANd the worst thing is I am not gonna be here too much longer (30 or so years), but for you young people if this continues I don't know what kind of America we will have.

It is already a marshal law or military state whether we admit it or not. I have seen so many freedoms vanish in my time it is pitiful.

[GaelstormIRA]

Jumping in - they aren't against freedom of religion, they just define it differently than rational people. To them, it's freedom to practice THEIR religion and then shove it down our throats. (Do I sound a little pissed?!)

BINGO!!!

It's all about how they think that their religion is the only religion and that anyone else is just simply wrong. It is this whole moral majority that has gotten America so damn up tight, that we don't know our heads from our asses I simply hate the religious majority in power in my country. One day when all the old bigot bastards die out, America might actually have a chance of stepping out from behind years of sexual repression and ignorance.

But then again I also believe that plural marriages should be lawful and cannot believe it took so long for us to see that racism is completely wrong or that women should be considered equals.

Yeah America is one screwed up country.

[cbtboyuk]

Fascinating discussion.....i can't resist it....

i like the stuff about America being founded on an ideal. It would be nice if that were absolutely the case, but i think it is debatable is it not? It is possible, after all, to attribute the expulsion/emmigration of those on the Mayflower to the fact that they were not allowed to impose their extreme religious views and life choices on the rest of the population and so stamped off to the New World and set in motion the murder and removal of an indigenous people.....which i would suggest has a lot more in common with the Bush regime than the 'ideal'. The original colonists' idea of religious freedom was not simply the freedom to worship as one wished, but also the "freedom" to impose that view on others. You could argue that the religious right in the States are upholding the earliest and finest traditions of the country.

Just as an aside, i can't understand why gagged_louise has somehow equated gay adoption with international adoption, when the two are quite clearly separate issues. Certainly in the UK, gay adoption is about same sex couples adopting children from this country. The issue of going abroad was only tangled up with it because sometimes before the law changed same sex couples who really wanted children would go abroad to get round the legal stuff. i'm not defending that, but surely saying one has a problem with gay adoption because some gay couples go abroad makes no sense. You obviously have a problem with the international thing - fair enough - but that doesn't have any relevance to the gender or sexuality of the prospective parents. i think you need to separate these issues out in your mind, beacuse i have to say i think your mixing them together under this subject comes over as homophobic. What are your objections to gay adoption per se? What are your objections to international adoption?

My father is a Christian Minister and his take on marriage was interesting (especially as Master and i were preparing to have our Civil Partnership - btw the title Civ Partnership is in itself an way round religious objection to gay marriage). My father pointed out that the sacraments of the church are actually (something like - there may be some i've left out, cos i'm not, on the other hand, a Christian minister) baptism and eucharist and such like. He says that marriage existed prior to Chirstianity....in fact it is a social contruct in which a community/society would recognise and legitimise the relationship between two of its members. This becomes a religious ceremony for various reasons; on the good side, because your community is a relgious one, oyu beliefs are religious and it adds to the proceedings; and on the bad, because the church set itself up as the arbiter of all knowledge a social interaction etc. His argument therefore is that suggesting that the church/religion has any more right to comment on marriage than anyone else is nonsense, because marriage as an institution/concept is bigger than that. Plus he unearthed some evidence that same sex "marriages" did take place at various times - inc, it would seem between Christian crusaders going to the Holy Land.

i do find it extraordinary that people - like the 'god hates fags' lot and Falwell etc get so excited about gay marriage. "You're Christian you say? And you think the best expression of that is to get all excited about two adults who want to register a loving relationship? You do know that people are starving don't you? That children are being abused? etc etc are you sure you know what the word Christian actually means, bless you?"

Oh dear i've wittered on. Perhaps if i look at Tom's arse now, it'll one shut me up and two make him feel less repressed. Look, pansexual ogling!

[cbtboyuk]

Crumbs. i have now just looked at Tom's arse and i do see what the ladies mean. hehehe. Sorry.

[John56{vg}]

Good post cbtboy,

I think,in the U.S., at least that the Gay Marriage issue, the abortion issue and to a lesser, more fringe element, extent the silly Evolution issue are used to fire up Christians for political gain.

I have a Conservative Christian brother that was talking about the conspiracy to discriminate against Christians. When asked to cite examples, he used the abotion debate. I countered with the fact that no one is forcing people to have abortions! But it used to show the moral decay of the U.S. (simply no truth to that in my book).

And I hear talk from conservatives about the Homosexual agenda, total B.S. as well. Most gays I know are happy with some of the strides they have made but none are trying to recruit people to their "cause." ANd Gay marriage supposedly damages heterosexual marriage, HOW has never been answered.

And some of the most loving parents I know are same-sex parents.

But the leaders of these Christrian political movements use these issues to fire up their base. It is really sad to me.

And you didn't write too much, I liked reading what you said. ANd I tend to go on and on myself.

Thanks cbtboy, good post

[John56{vg}]

Sorry Tom, I am distracted by Tessa's, Jeanne's and D'luscious D'lish's asses.

Oh< i gotta be careful, almost fainted there. ~winks~


John

[cbtboyuk]

Good post cbtboy,

I think,in the U.S., at least that the Gay Marriage issue, the abortion issue and to a lesser, more fringe element, extent the silly Evolution issue are used to fire up Christians for political gain.

I have a Conservative Christian brother that was talking about the conspiracy to discriminate against Christians. When asked to cite examples, he used the abotion debate. I countered with the fact that no one is forcing people to have abortions! But it used to show the moral decay of the U.S. (simply no truth to that in my book).

And I hear talk from conservatives about the Homosexual agenda, total B.S. as well. Most gays I know are happy with some of the strides they have made but none are trying to recruit people to their "cause." ANd Gay marriage supposedly damages heterosexual marriage, HOW has never been answered.
And you didn't write too much, I liked reading what you said. ANd I tend to go on and on myself.

Thanks cbtboy, good post

Thanks very much - i'm enjoying this mixture of serious debate and looking at arses!

And i find people's obsession with other people's sex lives baffling too. i mean, i'm aware that people are having heterosexual sex, i'm not ruling out the possibility that i might at some point in the future, though i'm not actively seeking to, but it hardly occupies my thoughts. i'm certainly not filled with disgust at the the thought of a man and a woman together (That's because it's normal and natural and doesn't offend God. Oh yeah, silly me!) Surely if i spent a lot of time thinking about straight sex, i'd be bisexual (at least). Do really straight (but not necessarily narrow) people actually spontaneously spend time thinking about gay sex? (putting aside titillating girl/girl boy/boy fantasy action - you dirty, dirty people! ) But we already know that most queer bashers are closet gay/bi andyway....so it follows i suppose.

Yes it's funny how some people get obsessed with the idea there's an agenda ( a gay agenda, a Jewish agenda). Like there was some sort of international meeting that decided on it:

From bettybowers.com:
The Homosexual Agenda
8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with catty homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be "over" by the time it gets its first review in the local paper.

10:30 p.m. Cocktails at a debauched gay bar, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can't navigate a crowd with a lit cigarette in one hand and a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup in the other. Make audible remark about how "trashy" people who still think smoking is acceptable are.

12:00 a.m. "Nightcap at your place." Find out that people lie in bars, too.

[John56{vg}]

Hilarious Cbtboy, I loved it.

the other thing that has always bothered me about the marriage argument is that we heterosexuals are so protective of marriage. I am sorry with abuse and divorce and infidelity. We haven't done that great of a job with the institution, I'm afraid.

And a lot of Gay and Lesbian friends I know are very happy and committed individuals in their relationships.

And yes, I never have thought, "Wow, not that i look at that happy couple, maybe I want a relationship with a hunky man." And you are right, a lot of the people that rail against homosexuality are closeted and very unhappy gay men.

The lastest was Preacher Ted Haggard here in the States vehemently preached agains thte "Homosexual agenda." But had many times cheated onhis wife with a Gay prostitute AND taken Meth with him.

But what is interesting is that he was sent away and counseled by four other pastors and deemed "cured" of his homosexuallity in three weeks.

Of course he was, lol.

I enjoy your posts they are FABULOUS cbtboy!

Uh-oh I used fabulous, damn you homosexual agenda, I have succumbed, LOL.

Have a great day cbt!

John