USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

That attitude that anybody should just blindly vote for a particular party based on a sweeping generalization about the political parties is completely retarded. People who have that attitude shouldn't vote.
Didn't I tell you I wasn't much into american politics? :p

I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't like to be raised by homosexual parents. Again, why wouldn't the kid be able to have heterosexual parents like the other kids? We don't know how can that affect him.
That's right. We don't know. How can you say that homosexual parents are worse than heterosexual ones?
It's not about being worse. They can be the most caring, supportive parents in the world. I'm not talking about that, I'm referring to how their sexual choices may affect the child's way of thinking.

As we don't know if it affects or not, why should we let children go through it to know its results?

User avatar
kingchrisII
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:59 am

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by kingchrisII »

Homosexual parents, is no one thinking of the kids?! I wouldn't be best pleased to find out i got no mum, and 2 dads, that would completely suck.
Sporting may be right, it could make the kids more likely to be homosexuals.
God made adam and eve to make kids not adam and steve!!

I mean yeah it should be legal, but think of the ethical side of things

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Okay guys, first of all, homosexuality is not a choice, just as heterosexuality is not a choice. Homosexual children are produced from heterosexual households, and the opposite would be true as well. I'm also fairly certain that at least in homosexual households children wouldn't feel pressured to conform to their parents sexual preference....probably because...um...let's see...their parents will have been oppressed and ridiculed so much because of their own?

You guys have to step back for a moment and ask yourself why you think the idea of two fathers or two mothers so strange. That's right...it's because you have a father AND a mother, and that's what you have been taught to see as normal. But there is NO proof at all that it's not possible for two mothers or two fathers to properly raise a child in a loving, nurturing, supportive environment.

None of your arguments so far have given any kind of logical reasoning to the contrary -- you've just shown that you're uncomfortable with the idea because it's not what you're used to, or you think it's not "how things are supposed to be." How many times throughout history has THAT been said? Kind of reminds me of...oh...that's right...bi-racial marriage! And black people voting! And women voting! And Jews having political rights! And....you get the idea.

Kingchris, I'm not even going to address the Adam and Eve comment besides saying...it's a parable, don't take it literally.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

But there is NO proof at all that it's not possible for two mothers or two fathers to properly raise a child in a loving, nurturing, supportive environment.
I've already said that's not the point. The point is that living with homosexual parents my unconsciously affect the child's mind while it wouldn't be affected by heterosexual parents, I'm not saying that homosexual parents can't provide support.
You guys have to step back for a moment and ask yourself why you think the idea of two fathers or two mothers so strange. That's right...it's because you have a father AND a mother, and that's what you have been taught to see as normal.
It's natural to have a father and a mother, it's not normal because someone decided to. By natural I mean by Nature itself, not because of social dogmas.

I think it's of common knowledge that it's better for kids to be raised by both mother and father than just a mother or a father, in case the other one dies or is just not present. The same applies here, the paternal and maternal presence are both very important for the child and he or she shouldn't have that denied.

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
The point is that living with homosexual parents my unconsciously affect the child's mind while it wouldn't be affected by heterosexual parents, I'm not saying that homosexual parents can't provide support.
[/quote]

Are you serious? You think that somehow having homosexual parents will subconsciously affect the child in a negative or subversive way? Or are you saying that having homosexual parents will force a child to lean towards homosexuality? Like I've already said, heterosexuality and homosexuality are NOT CHOICES. And homosexual parents are the LEAST LIKELY to pressure their children in regards to their sexuality, for reasons that should be obvious.

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
I think it's of common knowledge that it's better for kids to be raised by both mother and father than just a mother or a father, in case the other one dies or is just not present. The same applies here, the paternal and maternal presence are both very important for the child and he or she shouldn't have that denied.[/quote]


Common knowledge Lisbon? Or just the common opinion? Once again you have no proof, just general statements that don't really prove anything.

Normal does not equal ideal or best.

A man and a woman are necessary to create a child, that is true. But it's not really necessary for both a man and a woman to love a child, is it? Many children are brought up by only one parent. Obviously it's good for children to have two parents, but many good children have been brought up by one as well. And I think it's not unreasonable to say that many good children could be brought up by two parents of the same gender.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

Navarone_Guy
Honorary Officer
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:02 am
Location: Over there

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Navarone_Guy »

KK, you shouldn't bash other people for saying opinions when you assume your opinion that *** people are born *** to be fact. It's just a little hypocritical, and by little I mean very.
Groovy.

KingKaramazov
Brigadier
Brigadier
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by KingKaramazov »

Nav, that's because the assumption that homosexuals actually choose to be homosexual is bordering on bigoted. At best, it's a near-sighted view that is a result of a lack of perspective.

Did you consciously choose to be straight? No. So why does anybody think homosexuals consciously choose to be homosexual? It's like saying that black people back in times of oppression would have willingly chosen to be black instead of white - nobody would do it, because nobody actually WANTS to be given fewer rights than other people just because of who they are.

Nobody tries to be homosexual in order to fit in and then accepts the fact that they are straight, despite the consequences. That only happens to homosexuals, because of the way our society is. Try to imagine what it would be like if homosexuality were the norm, and heterosexuality were the opposite.

If it were as simple as just choosing between being straight and being homosexual, nobody would be openly homosexual, because in modern society it's not worth it. That's why there are so many people who try to convince themselves that they are straight for many years and then end up coming out later in life after leading unsatisfying love-lives.

I'm hardly ever the type of person to think in terms of political correctness, and I used to be pretty averse to g-a-y people in general. But I've taken a step back and tried to look at things objectively, and even if I don't feel entirely comfortable with homosexuals, I respect who they are, because all people deserve that.
"Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrappings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square-knotting themselves?  They stoke a furnace all their lives, sweat their lips, shine their ey

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

Some serious issues being discussed here.

Homosexuals are just people like you, me and everbody else. They dont choose to become homosexual, you are born that way. Most homosexuals are raised by heterosexuals and denying the nature of their sexuality only leads to depressions, suicide and wasted human lives. It just happens, just like being being lefthanded or having red hair. Nobodoy chosses to be g a y.

Can they raise children. Of course they can. In an ideal world every child would live a happy life with mom and dad. But how many children are raised by single parents, or have to go through several divorces, or have parents with drugs addiction, alcohol, or are born in total poverty. If a single mom or dad can raise a child, why cant two moms or dads? I don’t think it has any influence on what sexuality these children will have later. Most homosexual people will want their children to lead a happy life according to their own desires.

In a modern society people can accepts differences and give everybody a chance to life a live according to their own desires, interests and wishes. Homosexuals have those rights to. The can have long term relationships to they can marry. For the law. They can buy houses together. They can adopt children.
For the not so g a y minded, we will talk again when one of your family turns out to be homosexual (about 10% chance for male, 5% for female?). You will want them to live a happy life.

).

I believe everybody is born free. Free to do what he wants an as he chooses. But at the same we live together with other humans, on an organised way, we call it society. The basic rule of society is that we share common rules and values, created to give anybody the opportunity on a free happy life.

Governement is a way to organise your practical, legal issues. It is of common interest everybody accepts these rules. We have a system called democracy, where every human has 1 vote to define those rules. My rule for society is "your freedom ends where the freedom of another peron begins". Thats how I live my life.

Religion is a way to organise moral issues and values. These values are much more of personal than communal interest. They will have a much bigger influence on your life than governement and laws will ever have. Because of that more personal impact, people have many different views on religion / moral issues. History has learned that imposing 1 set of values is almost impossible and wil always lead to the oppresion of individuals and groups with a different view on life. (look at the difficulties at defining basic human rights - people in eastern or arabic countries sometimes have different views on basic human rights, because they are defined by our western world standards).

So we have given individuals the freedom to choose their religion, to define their own values.

I find it very worrying and threatening that some moral majorities, or religions or individuals around the world refuse to accepts this and will do anything to impose their way of life on the rest of the world.

There is nothing wrong with religion, but for me it is a private matter. As are other issues such as abortion, being homosexual. In some of these cases, the governement has to make a stance on these issues, because of vastly different views between members of society. Differences that can lead to violence, murder. For me people should be free to choose for abortion, IVF, and even death within the limits set by the government. I don’t know when life begins. At the moment of conception? After a few months in the womb? When a baby can live on his own? From birth? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows. We can all have an opinion. And we should try and find some common ground on this.

And sometimes you have to accept that your opinion isn’t accepted by the vast majority of society. If a religion chooses not to give homosexuals marriage they can do that. Religion is a personal individual choice matter. (I was raised a catholic and went from 3-18 years to a very strict catholic school, so I know my bible things). But if society decides to accept g a y rights, religion has to accept this. No person has a claim to being more "correct" than another because he thinks he gets his views from the bible or koran.

Respect your neighbour as long as he respects you.
Last edited by luukje on Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DrWho42
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:57 am
Location: Sunny Southern California

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by DrWho42 »

Wow, very refreshing to find such dialogue on a game clan website!

There have been many interesting topics raised, but I wanted to put-in a few comments to support KK regarding homosexuality in humans.

There has been growing scientific evidence that homosexuality in mammals is triggered by a chemical change in the brain. They found in mice that a portion of the population became homosexual when overpopulation pressures were placed on the mouse environment. A certain percentage of mice were born homosextual in these strained environments, but not in environments with low population pressures. It is quite possible that as our ancient ancestors moved from tribes into cities and civilizations, population pressures triggered something similar to create homosexual humans.

Now I have found from my own observations that most homosexual people did not choose that type of sexual preference. All of them that I have met told me that as they were growing up they knew they were not "normal" and that they really wished they could be heterosexual. Some of them even pretended to be. But all of them came to the realization that they were homosexual because that was the way they were made.

One last observation on this subject. As a heterosexual man, when I see a naked woman I have a tangible physical reaction. When I see a naked man- no reaction. No matter how much effort I make, I cannot choose to become aroused at the sight of a naked man. Nor can I choose not to become aroused at the sight of a naked woman. I suspect that homosexual persons have the same difficulty choosing whom arouses them.

In regards to homosexual marriage, I don't see it as a big problem. My wife and I know a few homosexual couples. Some of them have children through artificial means. They seem as loving partents as anyone else. I personally think that a child would be best raised by a mother and father-- it provides a balance. But this is an ideal that cannot even be met by the majority of heterosexual parents in this country; 50% divorce rate, single mothers, dead-beat dads, etc. Is it fair to hold homosexual marriages to a higher standard of child rearing than heterosexual marriages?

I think that this is one of the problems that our political/media discourse has made in this country. By focussing on homosexuals and *** marriage, which comprise at most 10% of the population, we are forgetting about the mess the other 90% of the population are in. What can our society do to help families (all families)? What can we do to help all children have the best opportunity? Instead of focussing on whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal, why not work on reducing women's need for abortions- better sex education, family planning, medical or social support, etc.?

I think politicians and the media take these simple and emotional stands on issues because the solutions are complicated and not easy to correct. I think that the American people are smarter than we are given credit for, but without enough information we make poor decisions.

Cheers!
Image

"Any hussar who isn't dead by thirty is goldbricking." General Lasalle

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

In regards to homosexual marriage, I don't see it as a big problem. My wife and I know a few homosexual couples. Some of them have children through artificial means. They seem as loving partents as anyone else. I personally think that a child would be best raised by a mother and father-- it provides a balance. But this is an ideal that cannot even be met by the majority of heterosexual parents in this country; 50% divorce rate, single mothers, dead-beat dads, etc. Is it fair to hold homosexual marriages to a higher standard of child rearing than heterosexual marriages?
It's the only thing I'm defending here. Adoption agencies don't provide children to divorced people, singe mothers or dead-beat dads because it would lack the balance. Same applies to homosexual parents, no one (at least me) is saying that they can't love a child the same way heterosexual parents love a child.

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

[quote=""Sporting_Lisbon""]
In regards to homosexual marriage, I don't see it as a big problem. My wife and I know a few homosexual couples. Some of them have children through artificial means. They seem as loving partents as anyone else. I personally think that a child would be best raised by a mother and father-- it provides a balance. But this is an ideal that cannot even be met by the majority of heterosexual parents in this country; 50% divorce rate, single mothers, dead-beat dads, etc. Is it fair to hold homosexual marriages to a higher standard of child rearing than heterosexual marriages?
It's the only thing I'm defending here. Adoption agencies don't provide children to divorced people, singe mothers or dead-beat dads because it would lack the balance. Same applies to homosexual parents, no one (at least me) is saying that they can't love a child the same way heterosexual parents love a child.[/quote]You are correct, homosexual couples with a steady, lasting relationship and life have just as much right to adopt as have other couples. They will provide the balance a child needs and cater for every need.

Homosexuals with a history of violence, break ups, drugs etc, do not get to adopt a child.

User avatar
kingchrisII
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 556
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:59 am

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by kingchrisII »

I agree with sporting totally on this one...

im sure they can love and care as much as straight parents, BUT u need the comfort of a mother sometimes, OR to do the things with your dad, you need the balance of mother and father..

Also as it takes man and women to make a child, imo it should stay the way that man and women look after the child

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

Homosexuals with a history of violence, break ups, drugs etc, do not get to adopt a child.
What I meant was that homosexual couples were already an imbalanced case, but as it seems there is no end in this discussion so I'll leave it as it is.

User avatar
luukje
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by luukje »

I know you were trying to say thatsporting.

All I ask is just to think a minute on it, and do not try to judge the way of life of other people to quickly.

If you consider homosexuals "unbalanced", just as divorced or deadbeat dads, you are making a terrible judgement. Just because they are different, doenst mean they are any better or worse than any regular person.

What about single parents trying to do as good as job as they can rasing children? U NEED a father,U NEED a mother, should we take their children away? No we wont.

If 1 man can raise a kid, why not two men?

If a lesbian couple wants a kid, they just ask a friend for some semen, or go to some sperm bank. G a y men cant and are denied the right to have kids. Because they are different? Should we stopt those women having kids?

Why would a g a y man be a worse father than me or you?

Being g a y is a natural thing that just happens to a small part of the population. Like we all have our little differences.

Being a parent is a basic human right. Denying homosexuals basic human rights is something we should be ashamed of.

User avatar
Sporting_Lisbon
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 5276
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:18 pm
Location: Lisboa

Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)

Post by Sporting_Lisbon »

If you consider homosexuals "unbalanced", just as divorced or deadbeat dads, you are making a terrible judgement.
Unbalanced for the child, I'm not judging themselves!
Being a parent is a basic human right. Denying homosexuals basic human rights is something we should be ashamed of.
Yes, when it's not worse for the children, which we don't know if it is or not, so we shouldn't let them suffer it without knowing if it is harmless or not.

Post Reply