French Gay Marriage Bill Presented to Parliament

Jan 29, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

People demonstrate in support of a government project to legalize same-sex marriage and adoption for same-sex couples in Paris.

Comments
21 - 40 of 106 Comments Last updated Feb 6, 2013
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 30, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just forget it. You ARE incapable of answer direct questions. I'm left with the impression that this is because the answers would be revealingly poor.
but I answered you question a bunch of times...
you will not get over your "banned" idea regardless of what I seem to write...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 30, 2013
 
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>It's because he can't keep his lies straight and he's too lazy to scroll back and read them.
what lie?

Oh right, reality aside as usual Mona...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
but I answered you question a bunch of times...
you will not get over your "banned" idea regardless of what I seem to write...
Man, out of all the questions I've asked you, I've gotten ZERO straight answers (ironic for a "straight" shooter). All I get is evasive double-talk. "All other things being equal..." and such nonsense.

Let's try this one step at a time.

Do you MIND if gay couples raise children?
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 30, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, out of all the questions I've asked you, I've gotten ZERO straight answers (ironic for a "straight" shooter). All I get is evasive double-talk. "All other things being equal..." and such nonsense.
Let's try this one step at a time.
Do you MIND if gay couples raise children?
dude, read it this time...
If I say all other things being equal, that means to a logical person that there are times when a gay couple even trumps a straight one!
can you follow even that?

but when comparing gays and straights and ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, the straights should be preferred, which could not be done of we say we are all the "same" as you all already do "my marriage licesne is the same as yours".

do you see now how I have answered you MANY times but you just wont hear it?
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 30, 2013
 
David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>No.. Jane goes by verifiable scientific evidence; while you inhabit the realm of fantasy and malice-ridden wishful thinking.. Anyone without a still functioning brain will agree with her.. But don't despair.. you'll always find some less than bright character to agree with you..
Oh boy..! I meant anyone WITH a still functioning brain will agree with her.. Sorry, Jane..(the danger of "polishing" what's already typed)..
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
your the one buying jane's crap...
not a good indicator for you or your judgment...
Kindly do not bore us with your notions of judgement.. we all have to cringe enough as it is.. This defense of the sodomy bans just shows how hypocritical mankind is.. its most outstanding characteristic in fact..
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you read my last post and reflect, the answer is right there...
it starts "all other things being equal"...
"How about you read my last post".. Christ!! Surely you can do better than that.. This slaughter of the English language goes on and on.. and soon grunts and sign language will have to replace it..
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 30, 2013
 
David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Kindly do not bore us with your notions of judgement.. we all have to cringe enough as it is.. This defense of the sodomy bans just shows how hypocritical mankind is.. its most outstanding characteristic in fact..
read them or don't, its a free country...
who is defending sodomy bans?
can you even read?
David Traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
but I answered you question a bunch of times...
you will not get over your "banned" idea regardless of what I seem to write...
"a bunch of times.." Pity the death penalty cannot be demanded for such abuses.. if only your ideas would make up for them.. unfortunately they don't..
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>"a bunch of times.." Pity the death penalty cannot be demanded for such abuses.. if only your ideas would make up for them.. unfortunately they don't..
I guess i have a new troll friend..
get in line dude!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
dude, read it this time...
If I say all other things being equal, that means to a logical person that there are times when a gay couple even trumps a straight one!
can you follow even that?
but when comparing gays and straights and ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL, the straights should be preferred, which could not be done of we say we are all the "same" as you all already do "my marriage licesne is the same as yours".
do you see now how I have answered you MANY times but you just wont hear it?
LOL. No, man, no. I was just looking for a simple "yes" or "no", so we could proceed.

All I'm really trying to understand, is what is the DIFFERENCE between a marriage and a CU? What does marriage ALLOW, that a CU will PREVENT? If a heterosexual couple got a CU, what would they be lacking as a result of those "differences"?

If a married gay couple runs the risk of depriving a child from both genders of parents (only the RISK, of course. Many couples will have no children at all), then don't you CARE that they'll do the SAME EXACT THING in a CU? And if you DON'T care, then WHY NOT?

I just don't see the PURPOSE of civil unions, if they aren't different in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. You haven't listed any differences. You haven't listed what different needs they address, or what different rights they provide.

Let me try this another way.

Try to qualify how you feel about the following two scenarios, as either "GOOD", "BAD" or "INDIFFERENT":

1) Married gay couple raising children.

2) Gay couple with a CU raising children.

Could I just get one of those 3 words on each of these situations? I'm not looking for the run-around, I don't need to be directed back to something you already wrote, I'm not interested in hearing which planets men and women are from.

If you have strong feelings about #1 (which I feel you've expressed fairly clearly), then I'm interested in comparing that to how you feel about #2 (which you have NOT been clear about).
David Traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
read them or don't, its a free country...
who is defending sodomy bans?
can you even read?
You're right.. I meant the sodomy laws (anti-sodomy laws, that is).. Still, "a free country" doesn't give you the right to write anyway you choose.. Surely you don't want to give the impression that Americans are illiterate, do you? The effective presentation of your ideas will suffer from it and will run the danger of being disregarded.. You probably think being casual to the point of slovenliness is very "in" , but it just gives your posts an air of incredibility.. and one can tell reading them that you may be misguided, but also that you're far from stupid..
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 30, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. No, man, no. I was just looking for a simple "yes" or "no", so we could proceed.
All I'm really trying to understand, is what is the DIFFERENCE between a marriage and a CU? What does marriage ALLOW, that a CU will PREVENT? If a heterosexual couple got a CU, what would they be lacking as a result of those "differences"?
If a married gay couple runs the risk of depriving a child from both genders of parents (only the RISK, of course. Many couples will have no children at all), then don't you CARE that they'll do the SAME EXACT THING in a CU? And if you DON'T care, then WHY NOT?
I just don't see the PURPOSE of civil unions, if they aren't different in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. You haven't listed any differences. You haven't listed what different needs they address, or what different rights they provide.
Let me try this another way.
Try to qualify how you feel about the following two scenarios, as either "GOOD", "BAD" or "INDIFFERENT":
1) Married gay couple raising children.
2) Gay couple with a CU raising children.
Could I just get one of those 3 words on each of these situations? I'm not looking for the run-around, I don't need to be directed back to something you already wrote, I'm not interested in hearing which planets men and women are from.
If you have strong feelings about #1 (which I feel you've expressed fairly clearly), then I'm interested in comparing that to how you feel about #2 (which you have NOT been clear about).
If we are all married, how would you expect a law to be written that made a PREFERENCE for couples with both a mom and dad and not run into your side's argument that we all have the same "marriage".

So CU's are there to say, when the stats of a CU equal that of the marriage, the marriage should be chosen for the "adoption"...
now I have worked through a slew of emails where you turned this into a "BAN"...
which it CLEARLY is not...

SO, a marriage means moms AND dads and a CU means doubles of one parent...

same name infers same relationship...so we use a different name to indicate the different relationship...
and that means no better or worse except as to parenting when ALL OTHER THINGS are EQUAL (which I always put in so you guys don't go off comparing perfect gays to drunk abusive straights...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 30, 2013
 
David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>.
DNFTT.
David Traversa

Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
DNFTT.
Why don't you spell it out? Or have you decided evasion is the best policy? We all have to learn to take criticism gracefully; for infallibility is a chimera..

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
If we are all married, how would you expect a law to be written that made a PREFERENCE for couples with both a mom and dad and not run into your side's argument that we all have the same "marriage".
So CU's are there to say, when the stats of a CU equal that of the marriage, the marriage should be chosen for the "adoption"...
now I have worked through a slew of emails where you turned this into a "BAN"...
which it CLEARLY is not...
SO, a marriage means moms AND dads and a CU means doubles of one parent...
same name infers same relationship...so we use a different name to indicate the different relationship...
and that means no better or worse except as to parenting when ALL OTHER THINGS are EQUAL (which I always put in so you guys don't go off comparing perfect gays to drunk abusive straights...
So, to sum this all up (correct me where I get it wrong)....

You don't CARE if gay people raise kids, you don't CARE if kids have two dads or two moms, you wouldn't care HOW those parents choose to raise their kids, you would only care if those parents were called "married". You simply want those relationships SEGREGATED from heterosexual relationships, via label. To you, the LABEL makes all the difference, and it somehow actually exerts an influence on the well-being of the children being raised, by being labeled differently. Is that close?

I just see no point to that at all. Other than the segregation angle. It puts them in a "point and look at the weirdos" category. It's a completely unnecessary division. It's just a WALL that doesn't need to be there.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 30, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
So, to sum this all up (correct me where I get it wrong)....
You don't CARE if gay people raise kids, you don't CARE if kids have two dads or two moms, you wouldn't care HOW those parents choose to raise their kids, you would only care if those parents were called "married". You simply want those relationships SEGREGATED from heterosexual relationships, via label. To you, the LABEL makes all the difference, and it somehow actually exerts an influence on the well-being of the children being raised, by being labeled differently. Is that close?
I just see no point to that at all. Other than the segregation angle. It puts them in a "point and look at the weirdos" category. It's a completely unnecessary division. It's just a WALL that doesn't need to be there.
WAY WAY off...
I simply recognize that gay couples as compared to drunk and abusive straights would likely be better parents..
or NO parents is worse than ANY parents (in general)...
BUT when there are two couples equal in every other way but gender, I think we should prefer the opposite sex couple...
How would you propose we do that if they are ALL the same under "marriage"?

to repeat, nothing you wrote above has any bearing on what I am talking about...(again)
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 30, 2013
 
David Traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Why don't you spell it out? Or have you decided evasion is the best policy? We all have to learn to take criticism gracefully; for infallibility is a chimera..
why don't you look up what it means?
(A one time help to you, it means I haven't seen anything from you worthy of a response...)

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 30, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
WAY WAY off...
I simply recognize that gay couples as compared to drunk and abusive straights would likely be better parents..
or NO parents is worse than ANY parents (in general)...
BUT when there are two couples equal in every other way but gender, I think we should prefer the opposite sex couple...
How would you propose we do that if they are ALL the same under "marriage"?
to repeat, nothing you wrote above has any bearing on what I am talking about...(again)
So, how does marriage "prefer" opposite-sex couples?

If same-sex couples in a CU are granted every last single listable identical right that an opposite-sex marriage is granted... if they can raise children, receive federal benefits, retain their rights in any state, etc etc etc... then how does this "preference" MANIFEST?

Again, this comes back to my original question... what are the SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES between marriage and CU's? Is it JUST the name "marriage", and NOTHING ELSE? If that's ALL there is, how does that count as a "preference"? What is the BENEFIT of obtaining this "preference"? How would a same-sex couple feel UN-prefered by having a CU, if they can do EVERYTHING a "married" couple can do, and if they receive EVERY federal and state benefit that a "marriage" receives?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 30, 2013
 
The State of Snakes wrote:
I don't think a pair of 'straight' men should be allowed to raise a child. The balance that was intended, provided, and suggested in the human form would indicate all children should be afforded the nurturing and care that ONLY a FEMALE mother can provide to the child in the most indelible years of their lives. This ensures proper balance that parenthood provides and should be championed by the state. Just because gay men give into their tendencies and literally disregard the receptacles that a normal woman provides does not mean that gays should be allowed to redefine parenthood. In fact, I think at some point in the future this will once again be treated as a mental illness for you are conforming the human race in a entirely different, dangerous, and destructive direction.
There will come a day.
Soon.
America is the decadent devil and China and Russia are sick of us being brought into the gutter by the Ashkezars.
Oh, my goodness. No, there will not "come a day".

You're going to have to undo all the current laws which allow same-sex marriages. You'll have to go state to state and repeal anti-discrimination laws. You'll have to rally the APA and the AMA to adopt an entirely new school of thought on the subject. You'll have to go door to door and TAKE children away from the people raising them.

I don't see anyone taking even a SINGLE step in this direction, let alone doing ALL of it. You've got your work cut out for you.

And, Straight Shooter, there are 2 kinds of people in this fight. Pros, and cons. LOOK at what the cons are littered with. YOU'VE got YOUR work cut out for you, too.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••