So in the end, we pretty much agree.
Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Rusty Sticks
- Start date
- Status
yes, I must say that we do. There isn't much that I could add, but I like to be as secular as possible. The bible thing, it's not my territory, for I'm an atheist.
I'm also gay and in the military. So I have some relevant perspective on this... news. How I address the issue is usually with scientific discrimination.
I'm also gay and in the military. So I have some relevant perspective on this... news. How I address the issue is usually with scientific discrimination.
That is a truly beautiful letter. I agree with it completely. It does come up with an interesting point about not having a Christian country. In fact, I recently read a similar observation about the popularity of Christianity. I was not aware that I was acting in such a manner that I seemed more perfect than any of you, and I certainly hope I didn't say anything hateful. If I did, please point it out directly and I will do my best to clarify my position. However, tolerance presupposes disagreement. I believe I have been tolerant, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. I have merely been answering questions so far, (after my comment about the strangeness of HA559's argument) and have been doing so with the utmost attempt to be honest and loving in my responses. I have extended invitations to talk more thoroughly with those who have been questioning me, although nothing has resulted in that as of yet. Once more, I have huge amounts of respect for every one of you.
@Chaos Jackal I'm actually a male. No sweat, I'm not about to snap and go all caps on you, but I thought it warranted correction.
I find it helpful to educate people about stuff like this since real lives are affected by this. Your honesty with me was by far was the quickest I ever had that did not need a argument. I wish others here would do what you did as that is the quickest way to questioning ones beliefs. On a much larger scale, we can do away with laws that discriminate against the LGBT community.
Not that what you said was hateful but you were being honest. That is the first step.
Yeah, my bad. I didn't see your message when I posted. Something HAS resulted from my invitation.
I would have message you but I prefer to keep this in the public since it can be a learning experience for others in need or on the fence about it. If its something personal, then I can respect that.
Too many people to reply too. I will go through it really quickly
@crystal_pidgeot
You didn't get my point about altering DNA of a baby. I put out the positive there, about eliminating the disease then said while also mentioning the drawbacks such as altering eye colour and other things meaning they want to create the perfect baby. It is like you are shopping to find the best look for your baby.
from @Arugula Salad point to which you replied to. Actually if you look at it from a religious point of view even though some Religions oppose on gay marriage. when it comes to caring for people albeit adult or child you are rewarded anyway in some way anyway according to those Religions (maybe not all). With or without Religion I don't think that would change my decision when it comes to seeing it from neutral point of view. I will stay say when it comes to adopting look for a good straight couple first. Obviously there are also incompatible maybe bad straight couple as ell, for them you don't consider at all about them adopting a child.
@Celever
I don't know why you have to make that part of your comment bold. I already said I accept there are gay people. Let's say both those couple came in trying to adopt the same child, the straight couple who can't conceive and the gay couple. They both have same attributes when talking about their background work, living etc. I would give the straight couple priority. Obviously some degree of choice will come down to the child (depending on how old they are). In that case if the child chooses the gay parents I wouldn't say anything.In the case the child is just a baby I would give the child to the straight couple who can't conceive.
You will not be subject to abuse not only in school maybe online as well in later life if you were raised by one single parent as you would do if you were with a gay couple. I said also in the last comment I'll come to agree with you that all is the same gay or not gay if you know someone who has been adopted and raised by gay couple and not had any damaging effect from outside nothing to do with the gay parents. I hope this is clear.
@CuriousCleffa
I regret this comment see summary. Also I do not know your background, so I cannot comment any further than this.
Summary @all
Like I said in last comment I accept there are gay people but when it comes to adopting I also accept it but I don't support it atleast I don't prioritize it ahead of a good straight couple.
I regret that sharp dagger, first comment. It was a quick response too quick and too short. It has effected many people here, it wasn't intended, thread is too long already and wanted to keep it short but that wasn't the right way to go about it. I realize it got some people fuming here maybe emotionally as well again that was not intended.
Gay people are struggling to get acceptance from adults, so what makes you think the adopted child will get away without this abuse on top of every other abuse they might get. This is an opinion. This society isn't forgiving, and for that reason I would prioritize a straight couple for the child first when it comes to adopting, then a single person trying to adopt (I don't know if they allow this in US). Then maybe Gay parent. Also again, someone caring is better than no one caring, and if that case is someone gay person caring for a child then it can only a good thing.
Lastly again I did not intend to attack anyone here, but the approach was wrong, now that I look back a day later.
@crystal_pidgeot
You didn't get my point about altering DNA of a baby. I put out the positive there, about eliminating the disease then said while also mentioning the drawbacks such as altering eye colour and other things meaning they want to create the perfect baby. It is like you are shopping to find the best look for your baby.
from @Arugula Salad point to which you replied to. Actually if you look at it from a religious point of view even though some Religions oppose on gay marriage. when it comes to caring for people albeit adult or child you are rewarded anyway in some way anyway according to those Religions (maybe not all). With or without Religion I don't think that would change my decision when it comes to seeing it from neutral point of view. I will stay say when it comes to adopting look for a good straight couple first. Obviously there are also incompatible maybe bad straight couple as ell, for them you don't consider at all about them adopting a child.
@Celever
I don't know why you have to make that part of your comment bold. I already said I accept there are gay people. Let's say both those couple came in trying to adopt the same child, the straight couple who can't conceive and the gay couple. They both have same attributes when talking about their background work, living etc. I would give the straight couple priority. Obviously some degree of choice will come down to the child (depending on how old they are). In that case if the child chooses the gay parents I wouldn't say anything.In the case the child is just a baby I would give the child to the straight couple who can't conceive.
You will not be subject to abuse not only in school maybe online as well in later life if you were raised by one single parent as you would do if you were with a gay couple. I said also in the last comment I'll come to agree with you that all is the same gay or not gay if you know someone who has been adopted and raised by gay couple and not had any damaging effect from outside nothing to do with the gay parents. I hope this is clear.
@CuriousCleffa
I regret this comment see summary. Also I do not know your background, so I cannot comment any further than this.
Summary @all
Like I said in last comment I accept there are gay people but when it comes to adopting I also accept it but I don't support it atleast I don't prioritize it ahead of a good straight couple.
I regret that sharp dagger, first comment. It was a quick response too quick and too short. It has effected many people here, it wasn't intended, thread is too long already and wanted to keep it short but that wasn't the right way to go about it. I realize it got some people fuming here maybe emotionally as well again that was not intended.
Gay people are struggling to get acceptance from adults, so what makes you think the adopted child will get away without this abuse on top of every other abuse they might get. This is an opinion. This society isn't forgiving, and for that reason I would prioritize a straight couple for the child first when it comes to adopting, then a single person trying to adopt (I don't know if they allow this in US). Then maybe Gay parent. Also again, someone caring is better than no one caring, and if that case is someone gay person caring for a child then it can only a good thing.
Lastly again I did not intend to attack anyone here, but the approach was wrong, now that I look back a day later.
Last edited:
I don't see your posts as offensive, only religious. I really just don't see what a straight couple can offer that a gay couple can't. With the "good straight couple" that image is impossible to find. People can look good on the outside, but be ugly on the inside, otherwise all good looking people would never be bad. I mean have you ever heard of Jeremy Meeks? He was arrested for five gun counts, and the cops believe he was involved with many shootings and robberies in the area. He is also a confirmed gang member, and when he got famous for his mug shot (look this guy up) many women rallied to bring him out of jail just because of his looks, without knowing prior what he did (which involves 9 years for grand theft auto before this last arrest). Looks alone aren't something you can go off of, and there's no clear "good parent" look.
My question to you though, is what makes a straight couple better?
My question to you though, is what makes a straight couple better?
Good parents as in suitable parents, we're not looking for the perfect parents. If that we're the case (needing to be good perfect parents) then no one would be adopted in the first place. I agree with some people showing their ugly sides outside the limelight.
Also I'm not speaking from a religious point of view.
I'm more concerned about the child growing up, the same as I said in the last paragraph of the summary. It is to do with the children more than the people adopting them. The first comment on this thread was a too steep and sharp a comment, I already took this back.
Also I'm not speaking from a religious point of view.
I'm more concerned about the child growing up, the same as I said in the last paragraph of the summary. It is to do with the children more than the people adopting them. The first comment on this thread was a too steep and sharp a comment, I already took this back.
But what makes a straight couple better for the child? That was the original question and you haven't given an answer.
What makes a straight couple better? We can PM instead, I'm not trying to put you in the hot seat, you are only stating your view, I however do not feel like you answered my question properly is all
The only more or less understandable case that can be done against gay adoption, from a developmental psychology perspective, has been done already in the thread: bullying and intolerance; it was also agreed that it just wasn't strong enough a reason to forbid gay adoption; that yes, there would be growing pains, but eventually having gay parents would be no different a reason for bullying as wearing glasses or reading a lot, which is inevitable.
The point is that, as many pointed out, a case that says "a child must have a mom and dad", or, as it has also been put, "male and female influences" is rooted on a misunderstanding of developmental psychology, and foremost, of what exactly we call "gender".
Gender is a social construct , and as such, it can't be defined in a concrete way (it does have an innate component, but that is equally as hard to define); you can approximate a definition, but exceptions will always be aplenty, more than enough that you simply can't reach a hard definition of what is "man" and "woman", not to mention, applying your definition to heterogeneous groups.
One reason why this argument even exists is that religion and conservatism in general (not in particular) have their own, hard ideas of gender (ideals of gender, to be taught and followed), and have had all throughout their histories; since to them "man" and "woman" exist, are defined, and are inextricably linked to sex and sexuality, it stands as a conclusion that gay people (and more) are outside of this paradigm, and that a child needs both a male and a female parents, since that is how it was always done (or how God decreed, by means of the sexual condition).
However, once you strip away those strict notions of gender, and above all, distinguish between sex, sexuality and gender, you realize that all kids receive both male and female influence from everywhere; their friends, their parents (whatever gender they are, matching or not), their extended family, the TV, their teachers... they learn from all of them, all they need; all men have qualities that can be defined as "female" (or at least part of the more inclusive yet broad definition), and similarly with women.
Although equinox asks a very good question (what makes a straight couple better?), this merits a corollary: What does a child need to learn from a male/female parent that they can't learn either from a male/female influence in their lives, or the other parent? as in, what is the child from gay parents missing from the children of gay parents?
The point is that, as many pointed out, a case that says "a child must have a mom and dad", or, as it has also been put, "male and female influences" is rooted on a misunderstanding of developmental psychology, and foremost, of what exactly we call "gender".
Gender is a social construct , and as such, it can't be defined in a concrete way (it does have an innate component, but that is equally as hard to define); you can approximate a definition, but exceptions will always be aplenty, more than enough that you simply can't reach a hard definition of what is "man" and "woman", not to mention, applying your definition to heterogeneous groups.
One reason why this argument even exists is that religion and conservatism in general (not in particular) have their own, hard ideas of gender (ideals of gender, to be taught and followed), and have had all throughout their histories; since to them "man" and "woman" exist, are defined, and are inextricably linked to sex and sexuality, it stands as a conclusion that gay people (and more) are outside of this paradigm, and that a child needs both a male and a female parents, since that is how it was always done (or how God decreed, by means of the sexual condition).
However, once you strip away those strict notions of gender, and above all, distinguish between sex, sexuality and gender, you realize that all kids receive both male and female influence from everywhere; their friends, their parents (whatever gender they are, matching or not), their extended family, the TV, their teachers... they learn from all of them, all they need; all men have qualities that can be defined as "female" (or at least part of the more inclusive yet broad definition), and similarly with women.
Although equinox asks a very good question (what makes a straight couple better?), this merits a corollary: What does a child need to learn from a male/female parent that they can't learn either from a male/female influence in their lives, or the other parent? as in, what is the child from gay parents missing from the children of gay parents?
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with creating the perfect baby. We do it with everything we do. People want certain colored birds and snakes bred and some people look for people with good qualities to have children with. Science just makes that easier and in the future, this will be perfected with almost no risk.
As for the gay adopting, why are you neutral? I provided research done that says there is almost nothing wrong with it from the children's point of view, whereas in fact gay adopting is better for the child since they turn out more tolerant and less judgmental. When it comes to me giving a job to someone, I would hire the person best qualified, not based on prejudice or other factor not relevant. Why prevent a couple from adopting a child because you rather adopt to a straight couple?
I provided you with links that should have answered this. Have you review those links?
This thread isn't the place to talk about DNA mutations, so I'm going to keep this brief:
Everyone is different and everything is different. That is the beauty of the world we live on. If we have the perfect baby all babies and all people will be exactly the same. Is that really what you want?
Well, beauty is subjective and while I respect the views people believe in, I feel views that discriminate makes the world bad because we are stilling judging people for uncontrollable factors, which means we are not moving forward as a species. As for DNA modifications, no one would want the same looking babies. Someone might want an artist, another might want a scientist. The good thing about humans is we can be whatever we want but does not mean we can't give them something good to work with from the start.
Another thing I should add, in Nature, bad genes die off through natural selection. With humans, we have children at will, no matter the partner. Good and bad genes are passed to the next generation without care of the child. its why deformities and other sicknesses are very common in the human species from birth versus what you find in nature. Bad genes don't die in the human species since survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us since even the sick live full lives.
If we can get rid of these bad gene through gene selection , which is what nature demands anyway, we can also "kill off" bad genes and have good one.
If we can get rid of these bad gene through gene selection , which is what nature demands anyway, we can also "kill off" bad genes and have good one.
I think that to sum up the need for male and female parents the only thing needed to say is that if gay people are sons and daughters of straight parents so to from a gay couple may come a straigth person.
What's important is love. There is violence everywhere and parents that shouldn't be called that way because they only gave birth, not care.
Also related to children of gay parents, I think it's best to a child to have a home and be adopted than to be in centers for children.
By the by, that's cool that you want to keep it public to help others. I'll roll with it. From our conversation I know that you will respect this question, so I'd like to ask it in response to yours. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent God who created the entire universe and said, "homosexuality is wrong," would you try and tell him he was wrong? I hope and am pretty sure that you will respond with the same honesty I showed. If you do, then you should see that we pretty much come back to a completely different topic than the one this thread is supposed to be about, which is one of the reasons I'd like to move the discussion off. Also, what point were you trying to prove? I just want to clarify.
- Status