Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
531
Support
 
270

Vote now in Greeneville:

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3152 Oct 30, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that being straight sexually causes multiple wars throughout the world, pollution at an all time high, worldwide economic chaos, hunger and disease that destroys third world nations, and nearly two centuries of slavery in this country alone ? If straight men would just poke it in another man, then all the world's problems would go away. Did I understand that correctly? Hell, Watchmann, we might ought to consider it. We could take one for the team.
Well if the shoe fits...

I mean how many openly gay people sit at the steering wheel of the planet?

But you missed my other point about how it's the dominant ones that you really have to look out for. They're the one's who are running the planet into the toilet.

As for you guys "taking one for the team", I've been asking Watchmann to turn gay for a couple of years--to show us gay people just how easy it is to change one's sexual orientation.

I say "go for it"! If we can put a man on the moon, then we can put one on you!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3153 Oct 31, 2011
It doesn't take a degree to see that your 'study' is a joke.

It doesn't take a minister to know that a mother choosing to raise her child without a father is not just wrong, but despicable.

Everytime I shine a light in the darkness here, there is VV with his pants down...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3154 Oct 31, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
It doesn't take a degree to see that your 'study' is a joke.
It doesn't take a minister to know that a mother choosing to raise her child without a father is not just wrong, but despicable.
Everytime I shine a light in the darkness here, there is VV with his pants down...
You just can't deal with reality. You beg for studies and then deny them when they are presented to you.

I wonder if you refuse to believe scholarly works (written by Christians) about scripture, since, after all, they would have a vested interest in their findings.

Maybe you should only read Atheists studies on Christianity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3155 Oct 31, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You just can't deal with reality. You beg for studies and then deny them when they are presented to you.
I wonder if you refuse to believe scholarly works (written by Christians) about scripture, since, after all, they would have a vested interest in their findings.
Maybe you should only read Atheists studies on Christianity.
I rather enjoy scholarly debates exploring the reaches of reality and truth. It is sham imposters that twist truth and deceive to promote a agenda that disgust me.

The one you presented does so at the price of children. You are no different than a pedophile taking advantage of the innocent for your perverted personal interests.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3156 Oct 31, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok... I gather from this post is that there were studies that stated that children raised by lesbain couples were at an advantage. And that these studies are being disputed because they may not have been completely objective.
As interesting as this controversy is, it is irrelevant. This says nothing about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it just says that these studies were not completely reliable. I never said that children raised by lesbian or gay couples were better off then those raised by straight couples. In fact, I never said anything about children period. I just said that there are no good reasons to deny gay people the right to marry. And that statement still remains true.
Willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for that 'right', huh?

FACT 4: There are inherent visible and invisible distinctions between a man and woman uniting in marriage, and gay unions.

1. Marriage unites diverse genders, gay unions are redundant.
2. Marriage blends masculinity with femininity. Gay unions face no such challenge or opportunity.
3. Marriage produces natural fruit from the relationship. Gay unions are sterile.
4. Marriage sex between opposites unites in a healthy function by design. Gay sex is in conflict with design and as a result, inherently unhealthy.
5. Marriage re-unites genders back to our evolutionary birth where genders were combined in one life-form “Two become one (again).” Gay unions do not.

This distinction between marriage and gay unions is summarized in the generic comment; “Marriage is the union of Mars and Venus.” Gay unions can only offer the union of duplicate planets.

Gay unions are always sterile. It is just one of a number of things that expose gay unions as fake marriage. You have to 'adjust' the terms/quality so they will fit. It's like having to put a 'condom' over the legal, relational, sexual and reproductive distinctions of marriage so gay unions can impersonate one.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3157 Oct 31, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
I rather enjoy scholarly debates exploring the reaches of reality and truth. It is sham imposters that twist truth and deceive to promote a agenda that disgust me.
The one you presented does so at the price of children. You are no different than a pedophile taking advantage of the innocent for your perverted personal interests.
Pedophile?!? Ouch! That's a low blow even from you...

Wow, something has got you pretty riled up tonight. I hope you've not had a stroke or something.

If you want to continue to deny research that shows how LGBT can be excellent parents, then be my guest. You're only painting yourself into a smaller and smaller corner.

From now on, I think any of your "so-called Christian" translations and information needs to come from a non-religious, purely secular source.

Any attempt to have spiritual discussions will be met with the same resistance that you show when you deny that gay people can objectively research LGBT issues.

What's good for the goose, is good for his gay goose partner.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3158 Oct 31, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
Willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for that 'right', huh?
FACT 4: There are inherent visible and invisible distinctions between a man and woman uniting in marriage, and gay unions.
1. Marriage unites diverse genders, gay unions are redundant.
2. Marriage blends masculinity with femininity. Gay unions face no such challenge or opportunity.
3. Marriage produces natural fruit from the relationship. Gay unions are sterile.
4. Marriage sex between opposites unites in a healthy function by design. Gay sex is in conflict with design and as a result, inherently unhealthy.
5. Marriage re-unites genders back to our evolutionary birth where genders were combined in one life-form “Two become one (again).” Gay unions do not.
This distinction between marriage and gay unions is summarized in the generic comment; “Marriage is the union of Mars and Venus.” Gay unions can only offer the union of duplicate planets.
Gay unions are always sterile. It is just one of a number of things that expose gay unions as fake marriage. You have to 'adjust' the terms/quality so they will fit. It's like having to put a 'condom' over the legal, relational, sexual and reproductive distinctions of marriage so gay unions can impersonate one.
I love it when he gets on here and cries--moans even--about the "innocent children".

He knows this discussion isn't about children. It's about gay marriage.

Besides, his numbers--his lack of research--just doesn't support his prattle.

When he gets this way it's usually best to give him some room, let him "kick at the darkness until it bleeds light" and hope that he doesn't hurt himself in the process.

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#3159 Nov 1, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
Willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for that 'right', huh?
Ok... first of all, I want to make a very clear distinction. I am talking about gay marraige, and not gay people having children. But even if I were, the study you cited proves nothing either way. Even though it's probably not true that lesbian couples are better at raising children than straight couples, this study does not proove that gay people are any worse at raising children either.The results of these studies are INCONCLUSIVE, so please stop drawing CONCLUSIONS from an INCONCLUSIVE study.
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
FACT 4: There are inherent visible and invisible distinctions between a man and woman uniting in marriage, and gay unions.
Obviously there are going to be differences between Male/Female, Male/Male, and Female/Female relationships. No one denies this. However, "different" does not mean "less". Gay people being "different" does not give you the right to marginalize them.
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Marriage unites diverse genders, gay unions are redundant.
This point is too stupid for me to even bother addressing.This isn't even an arguement.
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Marriage blends masculinity with femininity. Gay unions face no such challenge or opportunity.
This is actually an interesting point. However, I would argue that all human beings alone, whether male or female, are a blend of masculinity and femininity. Every biological male on the planet has feminine traits, and every female has masculine traits, so this black and white Masculine/Feminine dichotomy you've set up doesn't do justice to the complexity of gender, sexuality, and romantic relationships. So who is to say that gay couples don't blend masculinity with femininity? Also, who says that blending masculinity with femininity is the only way to get a relationship to work?
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
3. Marriage produces natural fruit from the relationship. Gay unions are sterile..
So fucking what? Who cares that gay people cannot have children? What does that have to do with them loving each other and wanting to get married? Until you're willing to prohibit straight sterile couple's marriages, you can't use this as an arguement.
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Marriage sex between opposites unites in a healthy function by design. Gay sex is in conflict with design and as a result, inherently unhealthy.
Hmmmm... well I haven't suffered any complications from having gay sex. Nothing unhealthy about it.
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
5. Marriage re-unites genders back to our evolutionary birth where genders were combined in one life-form “Two become one (again).” Gay unions do not.
Wow.... you're actually citing evolution, I'm impressed. Gay rights opposers are ususally christ-o-fascist science deniers. Oh well, you're still wrong. This goes make to the whole "you over simplifying gender" and "gay people cannot have babies" things. Which have been refuted.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3160 Nov 1, 2011
Watchmann wrote: Willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for that 'right', huh?
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok... first of all, I want to make a very clear distinction. I am talking about gay marraige, and not gay people having children. But even if I were, the study you cited proves nothing either way. Even though it's probably not true that lesbian couples are better at raising children than straight couples, this study does not proove that gay people are any worse at raising children either.The results of these studies are INCONCLUSIVE, so please stop drawing CONCLUSIONS from an INCONCLUSIVE study.
<quoted text>
-The issue is, why not gay 'marriage'? You know that if marriage is redefined to include gay unions, it will legally hold the same rights regarding children. You want to separate the definition of marriage from children, but demand the rights of marriage regarding children. You cannot have it both ways.

-I agree, the study VV cited only proves the bias of the originators. I have however, cited studies that show that the biological/natural parents of a child are BY FAR the best for children. Those studies are not inconclusive. Common sense tells you that no one has a stronger natural bond then a mother or father to their child.

Watchmann wrote: FACT 4: There are inherent visible and invisible distinctions between a man and woman uniting in marriage, and gay unions.
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>Obviously there are going to be differences between Male/Female, Male/Male, and Female/Female relationships. No one denies this. However, "different" does not mean "less". Gay people being "different" does not give you the right to marginalize them.
<quoted text>
-I have never said 'less'. I have said marriage defines a distinct relationship 9opposite genders) that gay unions cannot match.

-Nor have I attempted to marginalize gays. They have every right to pursue legitimate rights for gay unions.

Watchmann wrote: 1. Marriage unites diverse genders, gay unions are redundant.
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>This point is too stupid for me to even bother addressing.This isn't even an arguement.
<quoted text>
'Stupid'??? The most obvious difference when you look at two couples is stupid??? I guess having 'diverse' used in a significant way must have temporarily thrown you...

When someone says there is no difference between marriage and gay unions, I want to ask a child looking at the two couples if there is a difference. Wonder if they would see one?

Watchmann wrote: 2. Marriage blends masculinity with femininity. Gay unions face no such challenge or opportunity.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3161 Nov 1, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>This is actually an interesting point. However, I would argue that all human beings alone, whether male or female, are a blend of masculinity and femininity. Every biological male on the planet has feminine traits, and every female has masculine traits, so this black and white Masculine/Feminine dichotomy you've set up doesn't do justice to the complexity of gender, sexuality, and romantic relationships. So who is to say that gay couples don't blend masculinity with femininity? Also, who says that blending masculinity with femininity is the only way to get a relationship to work?
<quoted text>
-You are right that we all fall at different points on a masculinity/femininity scale. However, at some point those distinctions define us as male or female. When those distinctions reach even normal points on the scale, there is a huge difference between the male and female. Gay unions do not come close to engaging the challenges and expressions that difference gives marriages.

-The attempt to call gay unions 'marriage' is what doesn't do justice to the complexities you site. That is exactly what I am saying!

-That gender diversity is not the 'only way to get a relationship to work'. I infer no such thing. I am saying there are many different types of relationships. Life-long committed gender diversity in marriage is just one element that sets it apart from all other relationships.

Watchmann wrote: 3. Marriage produces natural fruit from the relationship. Gay unions are sterile..
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>So fucking what? Who cares that gay people cannot have children? What does that have to do with them loving each other and wanting to get married? Until you're willing to prohibit straight sterile couple's marriages, you can't use this as an arguement.
<quoted text>
I have responded to that above. The debate you came in on is a example of 'so 'f'ing what'. It is estimated that over 96% of marriages in the world have children. That is the norm. That sets gay unions in a different category. What is the problem with gay unions establishing their own 'rights' just like marriages have?

Watchmann wrote: 4. Marriage sex between opposites unites in a healthy function by design. Gay sex is in conflict with design and as a result, inherently unhealthy.
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmm... well I haven't suffered any complications from having gay sex. Nothing unhealthy about it.
<quoted text>
I have cited medical information from gay sites that describe and warn of the dangers of anal sex. The anus was not designed for intercourse, it is inherently damaging.

Oral sex is inherently unhealthy. We don't eat buggers, why would we put our mouth on sewer outlets. Just because God ran a septic system through a recreational area, doesn't mean we should get the two confused.

Watchmann wrote: 5. Marriage re-unites genders back to our evolutionary birth where genders were combined in one life-form “Two become one (again).” Gay unions do not.
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow.... you're actually citing evolution, I'm impressed. Gay rights opposers are ususally christ-o-fascist science deniers. Oh well, you're still wrong. This goes make to the whole "you over simplifying gender" and "gay people cannot have babies" things. Which have been refuted.
Thank you.

How am I wrong about marriage uniting male/female back to our original 'roots'?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3162 Nov 1, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which have been refuted.
This has not been refuted;

"You have to 'adjust' the terms/quality so they will fit. It's like having to put a 'condom' over the legal, relational, sexual and reproductive distinctions of marriage so gay unions can impersonate one."

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3163 Nov 1, 2011
Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on the reproductive intentions of couples.

Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on the private sexual activity that may, or may not, occur within a potential couple's bedroom.

Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on a couple's acceptance of any particular religious belief or practice.

These three reasons seem to be the only reasons that you repeatedly give for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#3164 Nov 1, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
Watchmann wrote: Willing to sacrifice the well-being of children for that 'right', huh?
<quoted text>
-The issue is, why not gay 'marriage'? You know that if marriage is redefined to include gay unions, it will legally hold the same rights regarding children. You want to separate the definition of marriage from children, but demand the rights of marriage regarding children. You cannot have it both ways.
-I agree, the study VV cited only proves the bias of the originators. I have however, cited studies that show that the biological/natural parents of a child are BY FAR the best for children. Those studies are not inconclusive. Common sense tells you that no one has a stronger natural bond then a mother or father to their child.
Watchmann wrote: FACT 4: There are inherent visible and invisible distinctions between a man and woman uniting in marriage, and gay unions.
<quoted text>
-I have never said 'less'. I have said marriage defines a distinct relationship 9opposite genders) that gay unions cannot match.
-Nor have I attempted to marginalize gays. They have every right to pursue legitimate rights for gay unions.
Watchmann wrote: 1. Marriage unites diverse genders, gay unions are redundant.
<quoted text>
'Stupid'??? The most obvious difference when you look at two couples is stupid??? I guess having 'diverse' used in a significant way must have temporarily thrown you...
When someone says there is no difference between marriage and gay unions, I want to ask a child looking at the two couples if there is a difference. Wonder if they would see one?
Watchmann wrote: 2. Marriage blends masculinity with femininity. Gay unions face no such challenge or opportunity.
The beginning of this argument seems to not only be anti-gay, but also anti-adoption. Are you saying that adoptive parents are incompitant? Or are you saying that they don't love their children as much? If so, I know many, many, many adoptive parents that beg to differ. And I'm not just talking about gay adoptive parents, this includes straight people too.

I'm not denying the bond between biological parent and child. And yes, I would agree that being raised by ones biological parents is ideal. But sadly, we do not live in an ideal world. There are millions of orphans in this country, and even more world wide. By denying gay people marriage and adoption rights you are only taking away potential homes from these children. And yes, I agree, idealy, it would be better for these kids to live with their biological parents, but that simply isn't possible. So adoption is the next best thing. We can all agree that it is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.

As for the "definition" of marriage. This so-called argument gets brought on all the time and I honestly don't understand you people's aversion to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is a social construct, and we can redefine it to mean whatever we want it to mean. The same thing goes for gender and gender roles, they are social constructs, and therefore are subject to change, just like any other social construct.(and before you say gender is not a social construct, it is. The difference betweeen the words gender and sex are that gender refers to the social construct of masculinity and femininity, whereas sex is simply biological.)

“Gott ist tot”

Since: Dec 10

Amarillo, TX

#3165 Nov 1, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
I have responded to that above. The debate you came in on is a example of 'so 'f'ing what'. It is estimated that over 96% of marriages in the world have children. That is the norm. That sets gay unions in a different category. What is the problem with gay unions establishing their own 'rights' just like marriages have?
Watchmann wrote: 4. Marriage sex between opposites unites in a healthy function by design. Gay sex is in conflict with design and as a result, inherently unhealthy.
<quoted text>
I have cited medical information from gay sites that describe and warn of the dangers of anal sex. The anus was not designed for intercourse, it is inherently damaging.
Oral sex is inherently unhealthy. We don't eat buggers, why would we put our mouth on sewer outlets. Just because God ran a septic system through a recreational area, doesn't mean we should get the two confused.
Watchmann wrote: 5. Marriage re-unites genders back to our evolutionary birth where genders were combined in one life-form “Two become one (again).” Gay unions do not.
<quoted text>
Thank you.
How am I wrong about marriage uniting male/female back to our original 'roots'?
Ok... first of all... I'm going to have to say that your sex life seems really boring. Just saying. But that aside, the fact that certain sex acts gross you out, does not mean that they are wrong, or that people who enjoy them are some how strange. I would also like to point out that it is not only gay couples that induldge in anal or oral sex, and that plenty of straight couples do it as well (and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't fight to have their marriages anuled). Now, I'm not going to argue with you about the whole "God" or "designed" thing, because this is not the forum for that,(I personally do not believe in God, and if you want to argue that with me, I would galdly meet you on an Atheism forum.)But just because you believe it's a sin and that God never intended us to do that, does not mean everyone else has to believe that too. We live in America after all, and there's this little thing called seperation of church and state and you cannot base a law on your own religious beliefs. Though, I will concede one thing. There is considerably more risk for STD contraction and general infection with anal sex. The tissues of the anus are not as tough as those of the vagina, and therefore capillaries are more likely to rupture during intercourse. And it is VERY important to practice safe sex when engaging in this type of activity. However, with the exception of the previously mentioned, oral and anal sex are often perfectly healthy and enjoyble experiences, and there is no reason that people should not engage in them as long as they are being responsible.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3166 Nov 1, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on the reproductive intentions of couples.
Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on the private sexual activity that may, or may not, occur within a potential couple's bedroom.
Marriage licenses are not currently approved based on a couple's acceptance of any particular religious belief or practice.
These three reasons seem to be the only reasons that you repeatedly give for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
That's easy. No one in their wildest imagination dreamed that gays would use marriage to screw their asses, children and God. It is just too perverted.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3167 Nov 1, 2011
Watchmann wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. No one in their wildest imagination dreamed that gays would use marriage to screw their asses, children and God. It is just too perverted.
Ridiculous!

There's nothing perverted about being gay. It exists throughout nature.

And homosexuality has been known to mankind for eons. I've provided proof of past civilizations that blessed same-sex unions and marriage.

So people aren't just learning about gays for the first time. If you, personally, weren't aware that you were subjugating gay people, then that's you're problem. You can't blame us for pointing it out.

Look, not too long ago women did something that sent many people into the same kind of conniptions that you display on here... They demanded to be equal with men. They demanded the right to own property. They demanded control over their lives. They demanded that their subjugation come to an end.

And folks went nuts. They pointed to the Bible--insisting that women were inferior to men--that women couldn't possibly manage to live without a man telling them what to do.

The same thing happened with slavery. There were people all over the country who believed that blacks were "animals"--not humans. The idea that they should be set free was sacrilege.

Today we see how ignorant our distant and recent ancestors were with regards to gender and racial equality. Rights for LGBT people are the same.

It's the ignorance that you get on here and spout that will be talked about in the future--recalled with embarrassment and laughter.

I see your conversation with Roger--see how you throw the same arguments around. It's sad. You'll never learn.

I just hope that no one close to you is gay--that they don't have to live with your ignorance and prejudice. God help them if they do...
A of W

Smyrna, TN

#3168 Nov 1, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous!
There's nothing perverted about being gay. It exists throughout nature.
And homosexuality has been known to mankind for eons. I've provided proof of past civilizations that blessed same-sex unions and marriage.
So people aren't just learning about gays for the first time. If you, personally, weren't aware that you were subjugating gay people, then that's you're problem. You can't blame us for pointing it out.
Look, not too long ago women did something that sent many people into the same kind of conniptions that you display on here... They demanded to be equal with men. They demanded the right to own property. They demanded control over their lives. They demanded that their subjugation come to an end.
And folks went nuts. They pointed to the Bible--insisting that women were inferior to men--that women couldn't possibly manage to live without a man telling them what to do.
The same thing happened with slavery. There were people all over the country who believed that blacks were "animals"--not humans. The idea that they should be set free was sacrilege.
Today we see how ignorant our distant and recent ancestors were with regards to gender and racial equality. Rights for LGBT people are the same.
It's the ignorance that you get on here and spout that will be talked about in the future--recalled with embarrassment and laughter.
I see your conversation with Roger--see how you throw the same arguments around. It's sad. You'll never learn.
I just hope that no one close to you is gay--that they don't have to live with your ignorance and prejudice. God help them if they do...
Slavery, schmavery. Apples and oranges.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#3169 Nov 1, 2011
A of W wrote:
<quoted text>Slavery, schmavery. Apples and oranges.
It isn't apples and oranges.

The processes that people used to subjugate African Americans and Women are the same that are being used to subjugate the LGBT Community.

The processes that African Americans and Women used to overturn discriminatory laws and policies are the same processes that the LGBT Community is using.

The players are different--the game is the same.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#3170 Nov 1, 2011
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't apples and oranges.
The processes that people used to subjugate African Americans and Women are the same that are being used to subjugate the LGBT Community.
The processes that African Americans and Women used to overturn discriminatory laws and policies are the same processes that the LGBT Community is using.
The players are different--the game is the same.
Any credibility you had, you lost when you "paralleled" homosexuality and slavery.

The simple fact of the matter is, "marriage" by definition, statute, legal interpretation, societal acceptance and human history has forever been maintained as the union of a man, and a woman.

That does not mean that two people of the same sex who genuinely love each other and plan to spend their lives together in a monogamous relationship are not entitled to similar rights regarding family and property.

No one in their right mind would campaign to redefine the sexual relationship of a man and a woman as "gay." So why does it make sense to "broaden" the scope of "marriage" to include homosexuals?

Pick your battles. There is a reasonable argument to be had on this issue, but cramming the idea of "gay marriage" down the throats of the public at-large is unfair, unreasonable and completely unrealistic.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#3171 Nov 1, 2011
RogerSmith1992 wrote:
<quoted text>
The beginning of this argument seems to not only be anti-gay, but also anti-adoption. Are you saying that adoptive parents are incompitant? Or are you saying that they don't love their children as much? If so, I know many, many, many adoptive parents that beg to differ. And I'm not just talking about gay adoptive parents, this includes straight people too.
I'm not denying the bond between biological parent and child. And yes, I would agree that being raised by ones biological parents is ideal. But sadly, we do not live in an ideal world. There are millions of orphans in this country, and even more world wide. By denying gay people marriage and adoption rights you are only taking away potential homes from these children. And yes, I agree, idealy, it would be better for these kids to live with their biological parents, but that simply isn't possible. So adoption is the next best thing. We can all agree that it is better for a child to have two parents of the same sex than no parents at all.
As for the "definition" of marriage. This so-called argument gets brought on all the time and I honestly don't understand you people's aversion to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage is a social construct, and we can redefine it to mean whatever we want it to mean. The same thing goes for gender and gender roles, they are social constructs, and therefore are subject to change, just like any other social construct.(and before you say gender is not a social construct, it is. The difference betweeen the words gender and sex are that gender refers to the social construct of masculinity and femininity, whereas sex is simply biological.)
I appreciate your open responses. I ask that you not put me in a box, and I will try not to put you in one either. I will be brief, in the following, please feel free to ask questions.

I am not anti-gay. I think that most gays were born with that orientation. Without trying to be offensive, I think it is a form of genetic disorder. I think there are also several exceptions that I can describe later.

Gay sex is also against my moral and spiritual beliefs. Having said that, I think we are all 'broken' in a number of ways, including sexually.

The discussion you came in on was about artificial insemination by lesbian couples (and male gay surrogate mother) intentionally bringing a child into a setting with a parent missing. I believe it is morally horrendous and abusive to the child.

Of course anyone can be a good parent. I agree that biological parents are the best. I also think it is important to attempt adoptions where both genders are represented. I not only think that is best for the child, I think the child would prefer that too. I am opposed to gay couples adopting for that reason and other moral reasons.

As to defining marriage, it has a definition because it describes a unique relationship. That not only is important for language clarity, but because it opens a host of issues that those not really in the definition of marriage don't fit.

I also find it extremely insensitive to the almost universal cultural and religious definition of marriage. It is so offensive, I think there will be serious backlashes.

While I morally oppose formal gay unions, I recognize that society allows the pursuit of legal rights. I find no reason why that isn't the avenue being pursued.

You will find much debate and disagreement on your distinctions of marriage/gender/masculinity/fe mininity being simply a social construct. But for now, there is not enough evidence to make that assertion. Also, as I have noted before, marriage has been common in every 'social construct' in human history. Gay unions have only arisen briefly and never survived long.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 3 min Agnus 5,524
wheel tax 7 min dingleberry 89
Does any one know anything bout the poor baby t... 12 min Curious 9
4 More Arrested (Apr '11) 17 min Camelbeard 25
babies found dead 21 min Agree 16
13 month old and two month old "unresponsive" a... 27 min LORINY 16
DTR Cheating Spouses 1 hr outtabelton 15
your first love 1 hr curious 133
What is your favorite poem? 4 hr Veronica 104
Aggravated Statutory Rape in Greene County 5 hr Reality 96
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]