Controversial topic but nonetheless important.

Most pple agree gay pple should be allowed to marry , to experinece the same rights under the law as everyone else..As far as I know in Australia gay marriage is not reconised but I guess inevitably it will be.


The question is do you agree with gay marriage and should the couple be allowed to have children in theyre care..male/male
or female/female couples?


Thoughts? and any reasons.


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/gayparentsCORBIS_228x263.jpg



http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/16/00/22970016.jpg

No, I don't think they should be allowed to marry at all.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 24^th, 2007 at 8:04am:

No, I don't think they should be allowed to marry at all.

Short and sweet Sprint..

I think they should be allowed some recognition under the eyes of the law..wether it is conventional marriage or not is the one some people have a problem with..maybe a cermony to legalise theyre union..laws currently make no distinction.

Im against gay couples having children in theyre care..too many confused children in society already...and perhaps its unethical.?

yes, as they can't naturally have kids, they aren't meant to have them.

Many couples around want to adopt anyway. Better kids have a mum and a dad

Quote:

Many couples around want to adopt anyway. Better kids have a mum and a dad

I think there is a lot of merit in this statement.

Does anyone else have a veiw on gay parents?

Go on -deafen me with your silence.

Controversial topic but nonetheless important.

Most pple agree gay pple should be allowed to marry , to experinece the same rights under the law as everyone else..As far as I know in Australia gay marriage is not reconised but I guess inevitably it will be.


The question is do you agree with gay marriage and should the couple be allowed to have children in theyre care..male/male
or female/female couples?


Thoughts? and any reasons.

no gay parents for me, not right.

I agree pender..Its not right, Im thinking of the interests of the child when i say that.

oceanz wrote on Mar 31^st, 2008 at 8:39pm:

I agree pender..Its not right, Im thinking of the interests of the child when i say that.

it just means that a child will never have the opportunity to have a mother and father, never, for a boy to never have afather figure or a girl to never have a mother that could be very bad.

its bad enough that single mothers have to raise kids, and any one of them will tell you how hard it is to deal with boys.

Surrogate mothers fulfilling gay men's parenthood dreams

http://news.smh.com.au/surrogate-mothers-fulfilling-gay-mens-parenthood-dreams/20080507-2bpn.html

An ever-growing number of gay couples are paying tens of thousands of US dollars to have surrogate mothers carry their babies, turning America's concept of traditional family on its head.

It took two women and two men for two-year-old twins Katherine and Connor to come to life.

Their fathers, Michael Eidelman and A.J. Vincent, who have lived together for years, invested love, time and all their savings to build their family in New York's Chelsea neighbourhood.

The eggs were donated by a woman in Washington state and fertilized in vitro with sperm from both men. The fertilized egg was then inserted in the uterus of a woman from Ohio.

Each man is the biological father of one of the twins, who were born in Los Angeles, where the laws are less stringent for same-sex couples.

"I am so glad that we chose that pathway," said Eidelman, a 40-year-old dermatologist.

"It definitely has challenges on a day-to-day basis. You never know what is coming your way," he said. "But, on the other hand, it is more rewarding than any other thing I have done in my life."

To fulfill their dream of parenthood, the couple turned to Circle Surrogacy, a company that helps people find egg donors and host mothers and navigate through the legal and medical insurance process.

"It is a very successful business," said Circle Surrogacy President John Weltman.

"In 12 years we have grown 6,000 percent with no borrowing whatsoever and profit made every month," he said. "We expect to double in the next two and half years."

When the company was launched, 10 percent of its clients were gay couples. Today, 80 percent are same-sex couples from 29 countries.

"Actually, of the 250 or so couples we have helped, all but about four are still together, a less than two percent break up rate, as opposed to the national average of 50 percent," he said.

The "gay baby boom" has made families with two fathers a common sight in New York City's daycare centers and parks, although gay couples legally marry only in one US state, Massachusetts.

"It is not looked at anymore as something so weird or strange," said Sanford Benardo, president of the Northeast Assisted Fertility Group from Boston, Massachusetts.

"More and more people are doing it," said Bernardo, whose company has clients from Asia to the Middle East and Europe. "It is not for celebrities anymore."

The process costs at least 100,000 US dollars, with 25,000 US dollars going to the surrogate mother and between 4,000 and 10,000 US dollars of the egg donor. The rest goes to the agency, medical costs and legal fees.

Coupled with adoption, the number of families with gay parents is growing. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, between one million and nine million children under the age of 18 have same-sex parents today.

Henry, a blue-eyed baby turning two in August, has two fathers -- Christopher Hietikko and Jeffrey Parsons -- both in their 40s. His surrogate mother, a lesbian from California, has been made part of the family.

"We became very close and we still are very close," said Parsons, a psychology professor at Hunter College. "We didn't want to treat it as a business arrangement. We wanted to treat it more like creating a family."

The two men don't know who fathered Henry, but they will take a DNA test once they are ready for a second child to decide who will be the next baby's biological dad.

For their first child, the sperm samples from both men were mixed together to give each an equal chance at becoming the biological father, Parsons said.

The boy was born in California, and the names of both fathers appear on the birth certificate.

The psychologist insists that children born in these 21st-century families are as happy as kids whose parents are a woman and a man.

"The research shows very clearly that what children need the most to strive and survive is a safe, and secure, and loving home," he said.

"It really doesn't matter whether there are two moms in that home, two dads in that home, a single dad, a single mom, whatever, as long as a child knows that he/she is loved and is cared for."

Quote:

it just means that a child will never have the opportunity to have a mother and father, never, for a boy to never have afather figure or a girl to never have a mother that could be very bad.

Times are changing.  It's all very well to say a child deserves a mother and a father, but the way our society has evolved over the past decade or so - a huge number of children are brought up in single parent families where one parent is absent much of the time, if not all the time.

Maybe we will have to consider thinking along the lines - 2 parents are better than 1.

Marriage is "the union of a man and a woman"
I have no objections to people doing what comes natural to them.
But they should not be allowed to "marry" they should have the right to leagally unite somehow...
And there should be no question about them having kids, NO WAY it's bad enough that junkies can have children for the cash. Lets try and minimise the number of children born into un-natural circumstances just because an adult has decided it's what they want, it's their right, and don't even acknowledge it may have an effect on the childs life.

OK

Homosexuels are disgusting creeps, they should be kept away from children because they are deviants.  There ...... is that more what you  want?

Idiot.  8-)

There is nothing stopping poove from marrying and having children.

deepthought wrote on May 11^th, 2008 at 8:25pm:

There is nothing stopping poove from marrying and having children.

Except that two men can't produce and nor can two women.  Maybe God interfers in this and some people are better liars than others?

Why would homosexuals want to get married anyway?  Nobody else does.  

They live their lives with "partners" (unmaried) ;) ;) produce kids, and presumably live "happily ever after" ....... until the "settlement"

Happy now, Mod? ;)

So merou, am I right that your only problem is semantic? That is, they can have access to all the same legal rights, except for their right to call their union a marriage?

Who owns the term marriage? If two people call their union a marriage, then that is what it is. That's how the English language works. No one is going to get confused by the terminology and think they are straight. What do you expect them to tell their mates? Guess what, we are getting civilly unioned?

Neferti wrote on May 11^th, 2008 at 9:03pm:

deepthought wrote on May 11th, 2008 at 8:25pm: There is nothing stopping poove from marrying and having children. Except that two men can't produce and nor can two women.  Maybe God interfers in this and some people are better liars than others? Why would homosexuals want to get married anyway?  Nobody else does.   They live their lives with "partners" (unmaried) ;) ;) produce kids, and presumably live "happily ever after" ....... until the "settlement" Happy now, Mod? ;)

No, two men can't, nor can two women.  But a man can marry a woman and vice versa.  And, coincidentally, nature has designed this particular model to be able to produce children.   Banging away at a knot hole in a tree or a bum hole in a bum will be quite disappointing in that regard.  But if knot holes or bum holes are your hole of choice then don't expect miracles.

Quote:

No, two men can't, nor can two women.  But a man can marry a woman and vice versa.  And, coincidentally, nature has designed this particular model to be able to produce children.   Banging away at a knot hole in a tree or a bum hole in a bum will be quite disappointing in that regard.  But if knot holes or bum holes are your hole of choice then don't expect miracles.

I doubt "Mod" will agree and that was my point.  So I reiterate.

Homosexuals (male and female) can do what they want in their own bedrooms, so long as they don't frighten the horses, but they can NOT begat offsping OR get Govenment assistance to "adopt" any more than regular couples can.

In fact, I believe that if you cannot "conceive" that is your LOT. Focus on something else and you may get lucky.  Some couples breed like rabbits others spend a lifetime of trying and never make it.  Luck of the Draw.

As far as "marriage" goes .....  not necessary as most of the population has determined. So long as your "partner" (hate the term) gets a share after a split up of funds or death.  Who cares?


Should you be one of those who is religious ....... that means you read the bible and know that you won't get into heaven if you are a homosexual anyway.  No Goverment legislation will change that.  ;D

but they can NOT begat offsping

In fact, I believe that if you cannot "conceive" that is your LOT.

Yes they can. Gayness is not about sex. A gay man won't become straight if if roots a lesbian, but he might begat spat. They can even use a turkey baster if it suits them.

So long as your "partner" (hate the term)

How about 'husband'?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2008 at 10:16pm:

but they can NOT begat offsping In fact, I believe that if you cannot "conceive" that is your LOT. Yes they can. Gayness is not about sex. A gay man won't become straight if if roots a lesbian, but he might begat spat. They can even use a turkey baster if it suits them. So long as your "partner" (hate the term) How about 'husband'?

You are pushing it, mate!

Why is it that you are so interested in what homosexuals do in their bedroom?  Surely nobody gives stuff. Unless you are "gay"?

Two men can't have sex and  produce a child ... nor can two females.

The term "partner" is PC and should be outlawed.  IF you are married you have a husband or a wife. Your children are "legal" according to the Bible.  IF you are living as a couple but not married, you are De Facto, but you have the same legal "cover" as a married couple after a certain period (2 years?) but the children of that "partnership" are effectively illegitimate.

I think that homosexual couples would be glad to be able to have the same "cover" as the De Facto couples. Same sex couples do not have a choice to marry or have children.  It will never happen. They should be glad that they are "accepted" in society the same as De Facto couples have been, and shut up and stop pushing the point.

Like I said, I care less what they do in their bedroom.  Please stop calling them Gays or Lesbians. They are Homosexuals. They made their choice.  They can't expect to be treated as a minority group, any more than a left hander Irish red head can to get special Government treatment. ::)

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

So merou, am I right that your only problem is semantic? That is, they can have access to all the same legal rights, except for their right to call their union a marriage? Who owns the term marriage? If two people call their union a marriage, then that is what it is. That's how the English language works. No one is going to get confused by the terminology and think they are straight. What do you expect them to tell their mates? Guess what, we are getting civilly unioned?

IF two people call their "union" whatever, who cares?  A "marriage" has an entirely different connotation and you should already know that.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the English Language.  It has a LOT to do with Christianity.

Does Islam "approve" of homosexual relationships?

Where in the entire World can homosexuals get married?  Name one country. Go on!

It has nothing to do with "acceptance" ... can't you bloody see that?

Please cease calling people "straight" .... the opposite to that is "bent" and that's not very PC.  ;)

PS  I am not a Christian, I'm an Agnostic, so I do not believe in what the Bible says but it is "written"and to change it would take more than a Rudd Referendum on that matter.  ;D

IF you are married you have a husband or a wife. Your children are "legal" according to the Bible.

No-one is suggesting that gay people have a marriage that is legal according to the bible. This is about legislation, not religious doctrine.

but the children of that "partnership" are effectively illegitimate.

By what law?

I think that homosexual couples would be glad to be able to have the same "cover" as the De Facto couples.

A defacto relationship is by definition one lacking in an actual legal agreement. Are you suggesting that gay people should be denied the right to choose when they enter into a legal marriage?

Same sex couples do not have a choice to marry or have children.

But they do have that choice, as far as children are concerned. Furthermore the fact that they cannot choose to get married is not a logical argument for denying them that right.

It will never happen.

It is inevitable.

They should be glad that they are "accepted" in society the same as De Facto couples have been, and shut up and stop pushing the point.

Just like the blacks should have been happy when they were freed from slavery and not bothered us with equal rights?

Please stop calling them Gays or Lesbians. They are Homosexuals.

Why? Does it bother you? Lesbian and homosexual do not have the same meaning.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the English Language.  It has a LOT to do with Christianity.

Plenty of other religions have marriage. Are you saying that Jews, or athiests, or Hindus aren't really married? Christianity does not 'own' the term.

Where in the entire World can homosexuals get married?  Name one country. Go on!

Actually, there are a few. I think Spain is one.

PS  I am not a Christian, I'm an Agnostic, so I do not believe in what the Bible says but it is "written"and to change it would take more than a Rudd Referendum on that matter.

Why do people keep thinking this has something to do with the Bible?

Quote:

Where in the entire World can homosexuals get married?  Name one country. Go on! Actually, there are a few. I think Spain is one.

Same sex marriage is legal in the US state of Massachusetts.


Quote:

Why do people keep thinking this has something to do with the Bible?

This seems to be the line preached by those who claim righteousness, and believe they are next to God in moral worthiness, regardless of whatever claim they make to christianity.  

Same sex marriage is inevitable and marriage is only a word.   We have thousands, possibly millions of people globally who have been in a conventional marriage, had children, then decided heterosexuality isn't for them the next time around.

So should the children of these relationships be removed?

If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to bear children naturally and keep them, why shouldn't those who can't, be entitled to use whatever assistance is available to heterosexual couples.

Homosexual acts have only been legal in Australia for 30 years so it's really over the last couple of decades that gays have been able to come out of the closet without having to cover their back.

Perhaps this is why some people have a problem recognising same sex couples as human beings and still consider them an abomination.

mantra wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 11:48am:

Quote: Where in the entire World can homosexuals get married?  Name one country. Go on! Actually, there are a few. I think Spain is one. Same sex marriage is legal in the US state of Massachusetts. [quote]Why do people keep thinking this has something to do with the Bible?

This seems to be the line preached by those who claim righteousness, and believe they are next to God in moral worthiness, regardless of whatever claim they make to christianity.  

Same sex marriage is inevitable.  We have thousands, possibly millions of people globally who have been in a conventional marriage, had children, then decided heterosexuality isn't for them the next time around.

So should the children of these relationships be removed?

If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to bear children naturally and keep them, why shouldn't those who can't, be entitled to use whatever assistance is available to heterosexual couples.

Homosexual acts have only been legal in Australia for 30 years so it's really over the last couple of decades that gays have been able to come out of the closet without having to cover their back.

Perhaps this is why some people have a problem recognising same sex couples as human beings and still consider them an abomination.
[/quote]

But it's still about qualification though.  For example I don't qualify to park in a handicapped parking space, I don't qualify to join a Fernwood gym, I don't qualify to bounce around on a Jumping Castle and I don't qualify to have artificial insemination.

If membership of the Fernwood gym requires one to be female and parking in a handicapped space requires one to be handicapped then why can't marriage require the two to be one of each gender?

Or should we allow everyone to join Fernwood gyms, park in handicapped spaces or marry their mothers if they want?

Vive la difference - let's celebrate it, not complain about how tough it is to be gay because you can't get married.

Marriage is not a private club. It is run by the government, and the government should not discriminate.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 12:27pm:

Marriage is not a private club. It is run by the government, and the government should not discriminate.

Being handicapped is a private club?

Being a kid is a private club?

Why do they discriminate about jumping castles and parking spaces?

But tell me this how is marriage between some two men or some two women discriminatory?  Who may do it now?

There are some things where discrimination is acceptable, or even encouraged. Giving preferential treatment to handicapped people, keeping adults of children's equipment. I hope you don't seriously expect me to explain why they do this. It is obvious.

Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation by arbitrarily denying people rights is not acceptable.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 2:37pm:

There are some things where discrimination is acceptable, or even encouraged. Giving preferential treatment to handicapped people, keeping adults of children's equipment. I hope you don't seriously expect me to explain why they do this. It is obvious. Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation by arbitrarily denying people rights is not acceptable.

First let's make it clear that marriage is not discriminatory.  This appears to be an error you are willing to propagate.  Any man may marry any woman (given the conditions are met - legal age, not related etc).  So no discrimination exists at all.

The issue you are attempting to understand is one of law, not discrimination.  At present the state of marriage is legal only between a man and a woman.

So before you can engage in any discussion about this subject it is important to understand where you are beginning - at the moment you are completely lost.

The issue you are attempting to understand is one of law, not discrimination.

You must be on a different wavelength to everyone else. No-one else thinks we are merely trying to figure out what the current law is.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 3:41pm:

The issue you are attempting to understand is one of law, not discrimination. You must be on a different wavelength to everyone else. No-one else thinks we are merely trying to figure out what the current law is.

Well you aren't aware of it.  You think the Marriage Act discriminates and it doesn't.

Yes it does. It denies gay people the same rights that straight people have. Defining the term such that it only includes straight people is no less discriminatory than defining a term such that it only includes white people.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 3:59pm:

Yes it does. It denies gay people the same rights that straight people have. Defining the term such that it only includes straight people is no less discriminatory than defining a term such that it only includes white people.

Not in the slightest. The Marriage Act does not differentiate between the colour, race, religion or sexual orientation of the parties.  It only stipulates that the state of marriage can only be legal between a man and a woman.  Any man or woman.

The definition of discrimination according to Dictionary.com is


Quote:

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

You must understand the distinction to understand the discussion.   And at the moment you don't.  You think discrimination exists where it doesn't.  This is very important.

I'm coming into this very late in the debate, but mayhap, DT, you have not understood that when there is discrimination, on many occasions, that is not unlawful, or even perhaps, not anti-social.

Frankly I don't care if homosexuals 'marry.'  They can do what they please, within the Law, just like me.  But:

I do have a concern with final outcome for a child brought up in a same sex parenting relationship, and I doubt there is yet any compelling research, one way or the other.

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:02pm:

I'm coming into this very late in the debate, but mayhap, DT, you have not understood that when there is discrimination, on many occasions, that is not unlawful, or even perhaps, not anti-social. Frankly I don't care if homosexuals 'marry.'  They can do what they please, within the Law, just like me.  But: I do have a concern with final outcome for a child brought up in a same sex parenting relationship, and I doubt there is yet any compelling research, one way or the other.

Charges of discriminatory legislation can only be levelled against the law when the legislation allows a group of people different behaviour or privilege.  For example 'only whites may ride the bus' or 'only men may vote'.

No such discrimination exists in law against marriage as anyone may marry as long as they comply with the requirements of being of age, of not being related etc.

deepthought wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:14pm:

Aussie wrote on May 12th, 2008 at 5:02pm: I'm coming into this very late in the debate, but mayhap, DT, you have not understood that when there is discrimination, on many occasions, that is not unlawful, or even perhaps, not anti-social. Frankly I don't care if homosexuals 'marry.'  They can do what they please, within the Law, just like me.  But: I do have a concern with final outcome for a child brought up in a same sex parenting relationship, and I doubt there is yet any compelling research, one way or the other. Charges of discriminatory legislation can only be levelled against the law when the legislation allows a group of people different behaviour or privilege.  For example 'only whites may ride the bus' or 'only men may vote'. No such discrimination exists in law against marriage as anyone may marry as long as they comply with the requirements of being of age, of not being related etc.

.....and so?

Quote:

Charges of discriminatory legislation can only be levelled against the law when the legislation allows a group of people different behaviour or privilege.  For example 'only whites may ride the bus' or 'only men may vote'.

That reads like discrimination.   Males and females can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex.  

As far as how children thrive being brought up with same sex parents - the evidence so far has been quite positive overseas.

In many cases, two stable parents of the same sex would certainly provide a better life for the child than one unstable parent battling on his/her own.

mantra wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:23pm:

Quote: Charges of discriminatory legislation can only be levelled against the law when the legislation allows a group of people different behaviour or privilege.  For example 'only whites may ride the bus' or 'only men may vote'. That reads like discrimination.   Males and females can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex.

But a man may not marry several women either.  In your view is that discrimination that it is restricted to one spouse only?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 3:59pm:

Yes it does. It denies gay people the same rights that straight people have. Defining the term such that it only includes straight people is no less discriminatory than defining a term such that it only includes white people.

Freediver,

You forgot the word LEGAL (as in Legal rights).  The ACT Government has been pushing for this for years (same sex marriages). I, personally, would vote YES (in case you wondered). Let them have the same problems as everyone else, legally and et cetera.  ;)

Howard's Government quashed it and then when Rudd's Government gained power, the ACT Government reintroduced the Legislation, again, to be told NO by Rudd.

How DARE the Federal Government over-rule a State/Territory's Legislation.  >:(

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:21pm:

.....and so?

And so . . .  it's time for bed for you young feller.  You've had a story read to you by deepy and you're off to bed.

The Marriage Act does not differentiate between the colour, race, religion or sexual orientation of the parties.  It only stipulates that the state of marriage can only be legal between a man and a woman.

It is discrimination based on sexual orientation to define a legal marriage as between a man and a woman. The fact that that is the current legal definition does not mean it isn't discriminatory.

A definition that says marriage is between two people does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:53pm:

The Marriage Act does not differentiate between the colour, race, religion or sexual orientation of the parties.  It only stipulates that the state of marriage can only be legal between a man and a woman. It is discrimination based on sexual orientation to define a legal marriage as between a man and a woman. The fact that that is the current legal definition does not mean it isn't discriminatory. A definition that says marriage is between two people does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Your being disingenuous again, I'll ask you the same question as I asked mantra who promptly vanished.  Does the Marriage Act discriminate against those who believe in polygamy?  Will you answer or will you vanish too

Does the Marriage Act discriminate against those who believe in polygamy?

Yes.

mantra wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:23pm:

Quote: As far as how children thrive being brought up with same sex parents - the evidence so far has been quite positive overseas. Link to the statistics, please. ;) [quote] In many cases, two stable parents of the same sex would certainly provide a better life for the child than one unstable parent battling on his/her own.

How many people have you known who were married, had children and then decided they preferred the same sex? Divorced. Began a homosexual relationship and the children were brought up by Mum and Sally (or whomever) with Dad having access?  That works both ways too ... Dad and Paul or whomever.

Children don't read the Law, they just know whether they are loved or not.

I doubt there are statistics on this though.  Plus I doubt that Mum and Sally or Dad and Paul getting a Marriage Certificate would make an ounce of difference.

Homosexuals (male or female) expecting to concrete their relationship by introducing babies (via adoption or whatever) is an entirely different kettle of fish.

What makes you so sure that children bought up by their Mother (minus Father) is disadvantaged? Or for that matter why a Dad can't lovingly bring up his children all-by-himself if Mum dies or hits the road!  I know many women (and a few men) who have bought up their children all by themselves due to divorce.

Are you so narrow minded that your idea of a "single parent" only includes drug addicts and dole recipients.  

deepthought wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 5:48pm:

Aussie wrote on May 12th, 2008 at 5:21pm: .....and so? And so . . .  it's time for bed for you young feller.  You've had a story read to you by deepy and you're off to bed.

Can't argue with that.  

You do write very good 'bed time' stories.......specials, dreaming semantics etc etc, which would put the worst insomniac to sleep!

Hilarious neferti.  

Actually I do know a couple of Mums and Sallies and the fathers have access - it isn't that uncommon.

As far as a link for the success of same sex relationships and kids, I will find it for you later - if I could be bothered.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

Does the Marriage Act discriminate against those who believe in polygamy? Yes.

So you would argue for the Marriage Act to reflect your new indiscriminate view of marriage?  

A person may marry any other person or any number of persons?  

Tell me does marriage discriminate against a person marrying a sibling?  A parent?  An animal? An inanimate object?

Quote:

Tell me does marriage discriminate against a person marrying a sibling?  A parent?  An animal? An inanimate object?

Yes, it legislates (and thus, lawfully, discriminates) against that poo.

Read the Act, DT.

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 8:00pm:

Quote: Tell me does marriage discriminate against a person marrying a sibling?  A parent?  An animal? An inanimate object? Yes, it legislates (and thus, lawfully, discriminates) against that poo. Read the Act, DT.

Thank you freediver.  So what say you?  You would support changes to the Marriage Act to allow any person to marry anyone, any number of people or anything at all?

No, I would argue that it shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Let them get married but don't let them adopt kids. It's just not natural for same sex parents to raise kids.

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2008 at 9:40pm:

No, I would argue that it shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

And it doesn't.  Any adult may marry regardless of their sexual orientation.

Wouldn't you just love to grow up being the child of a gay couple, no problems there, lucky the kids at school will be so understanding. It all seems rather selfish to me, not just gay couples but even woman who want kids in their 40s, Didnt do it when they were young, because of selfish reasons and wanting a child with no father for more selfish reasons, a child is not an i pod or a plasma tv.

Quote:

Wouldn't you just love to grow up being the child of a gay couple, no problems there, lucky the kids at school will be so understanding. It all seems rather selfish to me, not just gay couples but even woman who want kids in their 40s, Didnt do it when they were young, because of selfish reasons and wanting a child with no father for more selfish reasons, a child is not an i pod or a plasma tv.

I agree with you in theory Lapaz, but regardless of the strange upbringing these kids probably have - if you asked them all if they would rather be alive than not here at all - they would probably choose to be alive.

How many do you know to ask

Lapaz, are you seriously suggesting that children of gay parents might rather be dead?

No but the way children are growing up these days, it doesnt take much to send them off the rails, suicide rates are up, drug use, homelessness. Kids today tend to give up easily, so why add more resons for them to drop out, just to fulfill the whim of the chattering minorities. Before long there will be a case o0f sexual abuse and then all hell will break loose.

Many of the youg people who commit suicide are gay, but are afraid to come out because of all the discrimination. More gay parents, even if not their own, would most likely reduce this.

What trendy issue will you jump on next, free Nelson Mandala, save the whales, gay rights, stop the war in Iraq, let in all the boat people, start riding your bike to work while your 4 wheel drive sits in the garage, its all farly predictable what your going to say next.

Perhaps you should have a look around a bit before making any more silly 'predictions'.

Have you ever walked in on your parents having sex, how about catching daddy giving daddy a good old rogering, thats gotta effect anyone. unless you like that kind of thing FD  ;)

same sex couples can't have kids.
So, they should not be allowed to have kids.

If you cant have kids, you can't have them.

If you will let your sexual desire run over the want for kids, so be it.
You are not parent material

Sprint, same sex couples can have kids. There is nothing illegal about it. Would you like me to draw you a picture?

needs an egg and some seed to have a baby.

Want me to draw you a piccie ?

Who says gay people can't do that? Think about it sprint. 'Gay' people are not incapable of having 'straight' sex. Plenty of them do for fun. There's no reason why they can't do it to procreate, as many do.

plenty of gay people do all sorts of stuff for "fun"
poor gerbils.

yes, a gay man can bonk a gay lesbian and have a kid.
but a same sex marriage cannot have kids within that marriage and should not be allowed to adopt.

Good onya sprint, give it to these pillow biters.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt sprint?

freediver - to repeat myself
"same sex couples can't have kids.
So, they should not be allowed to have kids.

If you cant have kids, you can't have them."

I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure that really was your reasoning.

So if a couple is infertile, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt? By your logic, gay people who still have functioning reproductive organs should get prioritised over infertile hetero couples, as they are far more capable of reproducing the natural way.

Isn't it the interests of the child that matter, rather than the reproductive status of the adoptive parents?

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 9:17pm:

. Isn't it the interests of the child that matter, rather than the reproductive status of the adoptive parents?

Thats right "the interests of the child".
You may argue to be politically correct as much as you want, but the truth remains the same, when that child goes to school they will be ridiculed, laughed at, bashed and humiliated. Is this in "their best interest"
Stop trying to be politically correct and take into account the way the world really works.
besides:
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Anna and Eve.

Quote:

You may argue to be politically correct as much as you want, but the truth remains the same, when that child goes to school they will be ridiculed, laughed at, bashed and humiliated. Is this in "their best interest"

You don't know that happens when these children go to school.  There will be others in a similar situation and children are certainly more accepting of their peers than their parents, in many instances.

I didn't get all the details today, but a new law has been passed (is being passed) to ensure children of same sex parents (conceived under IVF) now have the father/mother - both - on their birth certificates  in "the interests of the child".  

These children have been excluded until now and have had no rights to the non biological parent's estate, permission, visiting rights etc.  It sounds like a decent law in the interests of the child, but it could be extended under the Family Law Act.

mantra wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 1:11pm:

[quote]You may argue to be politically correct as much as you want, but the truth remains the same, when that child goes to school they will be ridiculed, laughed at, bashed and humiliated. Is this in "their best interest"

You don't know that happens when these children go to school.  quote]

Come on Mantra, you know as well as I do that it more likely than not they would be ridiculed.

Everyone gets teased at school. I don't think a kid with gay parents would get treated any harsher than other kids. By the time the kids figure out there is something 'wrong' they would be over the worst part of that phase.

freediver - no.

if they cant have kids, they cant have kids.

it's as simple as that.
2 women cant have kids.
2 men cant have kids.

Quote:

if they cant have kids, they cant have kids. it's as simple as that. 2 women cant have kids. 2 men cant have kids.

Sprintcyclist - they are having kids, so we have to do the right thing  and recognise the relationship of their parents.  Denial by society just ensures these kids are social outcasts.

Merou - maybe we can remember the bullying from our school days, but it wasn't because kids had gay parents (basically it hasn't been an issue in the past).  

Kids who have been overly protected, are a bit slow or have some unusual physical characteristic are the ones who get bullied mainly.  There are so many different family set ups these days - that as long as the kid can adapt to mainstream life,  they can cope at school.

We can't stop same sex parents having children, unless we make it a jailable offence, so we have to make it legal for the sake of the children, whether we like it or not.

Mantra - no, we dont have to accept everyting everyone wants to do.

If they have kids (how do they do that, it has still not been explained to me) their kids ARE social outcasts.

no, there are not so many different family setups.
homos have always been an issue.

yes we can stop gays having kids. can certainly stop them adopting !!

how do they do that, it has still not been explained to me

Didn't you figure out one of the ways a few posts back?

no I didn't.

can you be precise and clear for stupid me please ?

Quote:

no I didn't. can you be precise and clear for stupid me please ?

Hahaha sprintcyclist.  You could only guess.  Apart from the standard IVF pregnancy, it would depend which way they swung.  Some females would make babies naturally, others would be more clinical - collecting "sperm" from a "friend" and using a syringe for maximum effect.

On the other hand - you would assume most gay men would have to be quite wealthy to acquire children - unless they have custody of them from a previous relationship.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 10:17pm:

plenty of gay people do all sorts of stuff for "fun" poor gerbils. yes, a gay man can bonk a gay lesbian and have a kid. but a same sex marriage cannot have kids within that marriage and should not be allowed to adopt.

Now, if you consider then number of different variations on human sexuality, you will start to get an idea of the diversity of possibilities that are out there, all of which are actually realised regularly.

thanks mantra.

So gay couples do not have babies.
they get in a 3rd party ?

Quote:

So gay couples do not have babies. they get in a 3rd party

Biologically no.  They are acquired.  But if children are wanted enough - that's a good start in life regardless of what sex their parents are.

so, back to what i said many posts ago.

They can't have kids, so they can't have kids.
That's the way nature/God planned it.
Don't upset the natural balance.

Sprint do you really support a ban on the adoption of children by infertile couples?

[quote author=mantra link=1187874397/60#74 date=1211404617]Merou - maybe we can remember the bullying from our school days, but it wasn't because kids had gay parents (it hasn't been an issue in the past).  [quote]

That is, partially my point, children a bullied for being different and I would bet that, should it become known that a child has 2 dads he will be bullied. Straight kids will not want him in the change rooms, toilets or sit next to him in class.
As sad as it may be he will get bullied by more children than just the known bullies at school, kids can be extremely cruel.

Kids used to get bullied for being black. Not any more. Times change. Your kids are far more progressive than you give them credit for. They only bully people for things that matter, like having a weird name.

Marriage is overrated in my opinion, its a pathetic institution that should be abandoned. A piece of paper doesn't make the relationship the people involved do. Love knows no boundaries and doesn't discriminate like a lot of narrow minded adults do. If GLBT people want to get married they should be allowed to like anyone else, who is the government to tell two gay people they don't love each other? They have no business interfering in the relationship. If GLBT people want to adopt kids that need a home they should do just that, children aren't homophobes that discriminate against you because you aren't a hetro. Discrimination, bigotry, homophobia is taught, its not natural and if its taught it can be un-taught. Saying children need both a male and female parent is ultimately sexist and plays no part in reality.
Why should it concern the public what two GLBT people do? It wouldn't concern them what two hetro people do so its no different in my opinion.
The worlds full of religious bigots and biased homophobes, we need to eradicate them from our government so rational and honest decisions and equal rights rights can prevail.
Everyone has the right to love and live as they please.

I don't think two gay men should have kids. Foster carers maybe, but no full adoption.

easel wrote on Sep 27^th, 2008 at 12:47pm:

I don't think two gay men should have kids. Foster carers maybe, but no full adoption.

And why is that? What do you think two men aren't capable of doing? Theres single fathers out the that raise their children just fine so why cant two fathers do it just as good or better?
Maybe you should give some un-bigoted thought to the matter.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 11:59am:

Don't upset the natural balance.

What is "the natural balance", Sprint?

Gay animals out of the closet


Quote:

Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own. "Homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are terms defined by societal boundaries, invisible in the animal kingdom. "Many species are hermaphrodites," Bockman said. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea. Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves. Like most complex issues, animal homosexuality is challenging and poorly understood. Therefore, educators tend to shy away from covering it in their teaching. Many scientists don't even want to be associated with this type of research.

queer wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 11:01am:

easel wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:47pm: I don't think two gay men should have kids. Foster carers maybe, but no full adoption. And why is that? What do you think two men aren't capable of doing? Theres single fathers out the that raise their children just fine so why cant two fathers do it just as good or better? Maybe you should give some un-bigoted thought to the matter.

Men don't make good mothers, then again neither do some women. I'm not a bigot.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 8:21am:

yes we can stop gays having kids. can certainly stop them adopting !!

How do you stop a gay man having kids with his wife? It happens all the time. Some people should simply never have got married, but they live out unhappy lives just because the family could not stand the disgrace and arranged a marriage to save the family reputation.

They live out their lives trying to hide what they do naturally from their wives.

I know of one case. When he was 18, he was caught with 7 older men. Let your imagination work out what they were doing, but they were not taking turns to play leap-frog with him. Everybody in the area knew about it (country Queensland). The 7 older guys were all married themselves (some happily). It was hushed up (if you tell anybody, don't tell them I told you) because the family was  local 'establishment'. Less than a year later, he was married. His wife knows the story and knows of some of his post nuptial adventures at least, but they stay together, partly because of the kids I guess. If you didn't know he was gay, you would never guess, but I don't make a point of talking to him. I don't know why, but the thought gives me the creeps.

Fortunately there is a lot less of such arranged marriages nowadays.

Quote:

How do you stop a gay man having kids with his wife? It happens all the time. Some people should simply never have got married, but they live out unhappy lives just because the family could not stand the disgrace and arranged a marriage to save the family reputation. They live out their lives trying to hide what they do naturally from their wives.

I don't think gay men marry anymore.  Homosexuality is legal and out in the open and there's no need for males to hide their preferences.  Up until the late 70's though homosexuality was illegal -so until then men had to pretend to be somebody they weren't.

I don't remember meeting any gay boys/men when I was younger - although there must have been plenty around, but they just hid it  - probably from themselves as well.

Gays seem to have burst out of the closet in the 80's and now it seems we're overwhelmed with gay men and they're proud of it, which is preferable to them being ashamed and locked up a few decades earlier.

mantra wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 5:15pm:

I don't think gay men marry anymore.  Homosexuality is legal and out in the open and there's no need for males to hide their preferences.  Up until the late 70's though homosexuality was illegal -so until then men had to pretend to be somebody they weren't. I don't remember meeting any gay boys/men when I was younger - although there must have been plenty around, but they just hid it  - probably from themselves as well. Gays seem to have burst out of the closet in the 80's and now it seems we're overwhelmed with gay men and they're proud of it, which is preferable to them being ashamed and locked up a few decades earlier.

That might be the case in downtown Sydney, but this guy married in the late 80's. I suspect there might still be a few like him here in rural Queensland who marry for convenience. He would be the only gay man I know of in this area, but there must be a lot more out there.

Quote:

That might be the case in downtown Sydney, but this guy married in the late 80's. I suspect there might still be a few like him here in rural Queensland who marry for convenience. He would be the only gay man I know of in this area, but there must be a lot more out there.

Yes I saw a documentary on a gay cowboy - he had a small part in Brokeback Mountain but there were a group of gay graziers and farmers that met regularly.  They were all big, bronzed aussies but until recently had had to keep their preferences secret.

It was very sad actually - because they all looked so macho but had had to live a lie - so I could imagine there would be plenty more in the country who were still too scared to come out.  City people might be more tolerant than those from the country.

heterosexual couple has twins........that's nature. Lesbians have twins and try to sue the doctor after an artificial conception............get over it and be grateful. how will the twins feel and which one was the first and wanted? this just proves we cannot control everything in life, gay or straight.


[url]Pair wanting one IVF baby sue over twins

   *
   * Email
   * Print
   * Normal font
   * Large font

September 18, 2007 - 4:04PM
AdvertisementAdvertisement

An IVF doctor swore in horror after he mistakenly implanted two embryos into a woman who only wanted one baby, a Canberra court was told during a landmark case.

In the first case of its kind in Australia, a lesbian couple is suing prominent Canberra obstetrician Dr Sydney Robert Armellin for more than $400,000 in the ACT Supreme Court for implanting two embryos instead of the requested one.

The procedure, which used sperm from a Danish donor, resulted in the birth of twin baby girls, who are now aged three.

Their mothers, whose combined income is almost $120,000, want $398,000 to cover the costs of raising one of the girls, including fees for a private Steiner school in Melbourne.

They also are seeking around $15,000 to compensate them for time off work, plus an additional amount for medical expenses.

Minutes before the procedure at the John James Medical Memorial Hospital in Deakin on November 13, 2003, the birth mother told Dr Armellin she only wanted one embryo implanted.

Dr Armellin said he warned the woman she could still have multiple pregnancies if the embryo spilt and she replied, "Do not even joke about it, I only want one," according to her barrister Hugh Marshall SC.

The obstetrician did not tell the embryologist of the woman's wishes before the procedure began.

Dr Armellin told the court he only realised two embryos had been inserted moments after the embryologist had sent them down the catheter.

"I said I understand she only wanted one embryo ... the embryologist said no, there are two, she signed for two.

"(I said) oh bugger."

Dr Armellin agreed it was a mistake to implant two embryos instead of one.

He said the usual practice of the embryologist talking to a patient before a procedure did not occur because the woman was under general anaesthetic.

"Yes, it was an incorrect procedure, I acknowledge that," Dr Armellin said.

The birth mother, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, told the court she suffered nausea during her pregnancy and in the latter stages could only move around with a walking stick.

She said she and her partner briefly considered adopting out one of the girls but quickly dismissed the idea as absurd.

"You thought: `Which one am I not meant to have'?" Dr Armellin's barrister Kim Burke asked.

"Yes, I did," the woman replied.

She said adopting out one child would be unfair to both girls.

"The primary consideration was that adoption shifted the burden of responsibility for this situation onto the children," she said tearfully.

"The burden is not the children's to bear.

"The burden is ours alone."

The woman said she had enjoyed some aspects of the pregnancy, such as decorating the girls' nursery, but other parts were distressing, including purchasing a pram.

"It was like the last frontier of acceptance to spend hundreds of dollars on a pram," she said.

Dr Armellin remains a practising obstetrician and gynaecologist at his private surgery in Deakin and does consulting work for several Canberra hospitals.

Justice Annabelle Bennett is expected to hear evidence from the birth mother's partner on Wednesday.

She granted an application from Mr Marshall to ban publication of the names of both mothers and their twins, saying the information could not only harm the girls now but also when they were older.

© 2007 AAP
Brought to you by aap [/url]

easel wrote on Sep 28^th, 2008 at 2:28pm:

queer wrote on Sep 28th, 2008 at 11:01am: easel wrote on Sep 27th, 2008 at 12:47pm: I don't think two gay men should have kids. Foster carers maybe, but no full adoption. And why is that? What do you think two men aren't capable of doing? Theres single fathers out the that raise their children just fine so why cant two fathers do it just as good or better? Maybe you should give some un-bigoted thought to the matter. Men don't make good mothers, then again neither do some women. I'm not a bigot.

Nice generalizations there!
If you feel that GLBT people shouldn't have the same rights and opportunities as straight people then yes, you are a bigot.

Hi queer - how are you ?

generalisations are generally correct

You say bigot as though it were a bad thing !!!!!!

oceanz wrote on Aug 26^th, 2007 at 12:30pm:

Quote: Many couples around want to adopt anyway. Better kids have a mum and a dad I think there is a lot of merit in this statement. Does anyone else have a veiw on gay parents? Go on -deafen me with your silence.

I'm perhaps a little old fashioned. I don't really care if gay men or women get married, I think they should have the same legal rights as everyone else, no problem there. But I don't think they should have children. Kids should at least start their lives with a mother and father, both are important and essential in the lives of children. So much happens in life anyway (death, divorce) and kids have to live without one or both, and it's possible to come out of it fairly unscathed, but children should start out with both. The only reasonable thing to do if gay people had children would be to ensure the child had a role model of the opposite sex (to the parents) involved positively and regularly in their life, especially if the child was the opposite sex to the parents.

jordan - I am older school .

No way should homos marry or have kids.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

Hi queer - how are you ? generalisations are generally correct You say bigot as though it were a bad thing !!!!!!

you don't regard social, racial and sexual prejudice as a bad thing?




Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 10:36am:

jordan - I am older school . No way should homos marry or have kids.

Why? Are we lesser people with lesser rights are we? Are we not entitled to the same rights as everyone else? Why should private bedroom activities dictate our rights in the world?

not really, why ??

anyone with a pinch of horse sense would honestly admit they exist everywhere and are generally true.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

not really, why ?? anyone with a pinch of horse sense would honestly admit they exist everywhere and are generally true.

You are a bigot and a homophobe and its people with your mentality that prevent the world moving forward, you prevent not only tolerance but acceptance as well.

yyyaaawwwnnnn
really ?  


Tell me, when the 100 metre sprinters line up at the olympics, what colour are they ??

how do 2 homos convieve a child ? By osmosis ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:00am:

yyyaaawwwnnnn really ?   Tell me, when the 100 metre sprinters line up at the olympics, what colour are they ?? how do 2 homos convieve a child ? By osmosis ??

Adoption or via a girl friend. Whats wrong with adoption? Theres tons of kids out there that need a loving home.

pardon - what colour was that ???

so, two homos cannot concieve a child. Is tha your answer ??

queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:03am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 11:00am: yyyaaawwwnnnn really ?   Tell me, when the 100 metre sprinters line up at the olympics, what colour are they ?? how do 2 homos convieve a child ? By osmosis ?? Adoption or via a girl friend. Whats wrong with adoption? Theres tons of kids out there that need a loving home.

Prospective adoptive children should still have the same rights to a mum and dad as biological children.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:06am:

pardon - what colour was that ???

its irrelevant to this.


Quote:

so, two homos cannot concieve a child. Is tha your answer ??

Of course they cant and you know this so why ask?!?!?!




jordan484 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:07am:

queer wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 11:03am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 11:00am: yyyaaawwwnnnn really ?   Tell me, when the 100 metre sprinters line up at the olympics, what colour are they ?? how do 2 homos convieve a child ? By osmosis ?? Adoption or via a girl friend. Whats wrong with adoption? Theres tons of kids out there that need a loving home. Prospective adoptive children should still have the same rights to a mum and dad as biological children.

Saying that a child needs both a man and a woman to raise it correctly is false, its not true and holds no substance whatsoever. Its personal bias and subjective thought that says so, not some eternal truth.


Check out this site, http://www.glrl.org.au/

queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:12am:

Saying that a child needs both a man and a woman to raise it correctly is false, its not true and holds no substance whatsoever.

Well, let's just look at what happens to children when the father is absent from the home. Boys are far more likely to become involved with gangs and end up in trouble with the law. Girls start their periods earlier and are more prone to falling pregnant and enter into relationships with older men. These are undisputed consequences of fatherless homes, there have been hundreds of studies across the world that prove this to be true. So, you can't say a father is irrelevant in the lives children. For both boys and girls, fathers are essential. Of course many children grow up without fathers and turn out ok, but it's far better for them to have fathers in their lives.

jordan484 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:21am:

queer wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 11:12am: Saying that a child needs both a man and a woman to raise it correctly is false, its not true and holds no substance whatsoever. Well, let's just look at what happens to children when the father is absent from the home. Boys are far more likely to become involved with gangs and end up in trouble with the law. Girls start their periods earlier and are more prone to falling pregnant and enter into relationships with older men. These are undisputed consequences of fatherless homes, there have been hundreds of studies across the world that prove this to be true. So, you can't say a father is irrelevant in the lives children. For both boys and girls, fathers are essential. Of course many children grow up without fathers and turn out ok, but it's far better for them to have fathers in their lives.

Can you provide sources for these claims, they seem absurd to me. Besides ,in a Gay relationship there would be two fathers, not zero.
The claims you list seem to me more of a moral and discipline issue than anything else, if parents raise their kids with morals and respect they are unlikely to fall victim to drugs and gangs. Out side influences, like peer pressure, is going to exist despite the gender of the parents at home.

queer - you wrote "you don't regard social, racial and sexual prejudice as a bad thing?"

So race IS relevant.

What colour are the sprinters ??

name me the most desirable countries in the world to live in ?


I agree with jordans statements on fatherless kids.
have heard and sourced them before.
motherless kids have different problems, due to there being no mum there.

queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 11:29am:

Can you provide sources for these claims, they seem absurd to me. Besides ,in a Gay relationship there would be two fathers, not zero.

I realise that, it was just an example, mothers are just as important for boys and girls, only in a different way. In a lesbian relationship there would be no fathers.

This comes from page 81 of Raising Boys, by Steve Biddulph.

"Many people ask: Do dads matter- can't mothers do it all? The research supporting the importance of dads is overwhelming. Boys with absent fathers are statistically more likely to be violent, get hurt, get into trouble, do poorly in schools and be members of teenage gangs in adolescence. Fatherless daughters are more likely to have low self-esteem, to have sex before they really want to, get pregnant, be assaulted and not continue their schooling. Families without men are usually poorer, and children of these families are likely to move downwards on the socio-economic ladder."

Now this is just an example of the importance of fathers in boys and girls lives. Mothers are important too, only in a different way. Therefore children benefit from having both a mother and a father.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I don't care what you do in your bedroom. Enjoy the gerbils till the cows come home for all I care.

Being gay is completely natural, it is not a choice. It is what nature wanted you to do. Therefore, nature does not want you to breed.

Want kids? Go have sex with a woman and prove to everyone that nature wants you to have kids. Don't cheat with the artificial crap, or slapping it till the point of no return and then sticking it in (which oh so commonly happens when gay men want kids). Prove to us that nature wants you to mate with someone of the opposite sex.

Quote:

posted by sprintcyclist: queer - you wrote "you don't regard social, racial and sexual prejudice as a bad thing?" So race IS relevant. What colour are the sprinters ?? name me the most desirable countries in the world to live in ?

I really don't get what it has to do with gay rights.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






I'm still not seeing any scientific research thats says "Gay parents raise screw ups and straight parents raise angels."

It all comes down to responsible parenting, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Regardless of your subjective opinion all GLBT people are entitled to the right to have a family and raise children, since two gay people cant produce naturally adoption and surrogacy are some of the options.

If a male and female couple has the right to adopt etc then its only fair that a GLBT couple has the same right. Its all about equal rights and opportunities which the GLBT community does not receive.

Personally I don't even know if I want to ever have kids with a female or another guy (I'm bi-sexual) and until government and social discrimination ends and we are granted equal rights I will defend the GLBT communities right to do that which straight people take for granted.

that is about as sensible as me protesting for my "right" to get pregnant.


You don't have a choice about having a kid with another guy. homos can't have kids.
It takes a seed and an egg. Not a seed and another seed, or two eggs.

If nature says you two can't have kids, then I think you can't have kids.


normal people take their responsibilities, so they have the advantages.

Quote:

The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?pagewanted=print

This isn't about being fair. This is about what's right for the children.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:

that is about as sensible as me protesting for my "right" to get pregnant. You don't have a choice about having a kid with another guy. homos can't have kids. It takes a seed and an egg. Not a seed and another seed, or two eggs. If nature says you two can't have kids, then I think you can't have kid normal people take their responsibilities, so they have the advantages.

Naturalism is flawed reasoning, by the same reasoning we can agree that we should never cut our hair or shave. We can also add to that that straight couples that cannot reproduce due to some defect on either partners part will result in them not having the right to adopt because they cannot reproduce naturally.
Your reasoning is flawed form the start and reeks of prejudice.






easel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:00pm:

Quote: The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?pagewanted=print

That article has its head in its ass, bi-sexuality is just as legit a sexuality as any other. For the record, I'm bi-sexual but rarely have anything sexually to do with women and I prefer my own kind.

queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:07pm:

Naturalism is flawed reasoning, by the same reasoning we can agree that we should never cut our hair or shave. We can also add to that that straight couples that cannot reproduce due to some defect on either partners part will result in them not having the right to adopt because they cannot reproduce naturally. Your reasoning is flawed form the start and reeks of prejudice.

Cutting your hair is not the same as what you are talking about. Grooming is natural. Most animals do it. Straight couples are supposed to reproduce naturally, even if they can't they were born to genders and orientation that supports it. Gay people are not designed for breeding. Deal with it.


Quote:

That article has its head in its ass, bi-sexuality is just as legit a sexuality as any other. ZFor the rfecord, I'm bi-sexual but rarely have anything sexually to do with women and i prefer my own kind.

Sweety, you are gay.


Quote:

"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."

You are just horny.

easel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

queer wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 3:07pm: Naturalism is flawed reasoning, by the same reasoning we can agree that we should never cut our hair or shave. We can also add to that that straight couples that cannot reproduce due to some defect on either partners part will result in them not having the right to adopt because they cannot reproduce naturally. Your reasoning is flawed form the start and reeks of prejudice. Cutting your hair is not the same as what you are talking about. Grooming is natural. Most animals do it. Straight couples are supposed to reproduce naturally, even if they can't they were born to genders and orientation that supports it. Gay people are not designed for breeding. Deal with it. Quote: That article has its head in its ass, bi-sexuality is just as legit a sexuality as any other. ZFor the rfecord, I'm bi-sexual but rarely have anything sexually to do with women and i prefer my own kind. Sweety, you are gay. [quote]"I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation."

You are just horny.
[/quote]I feel that in the end, as we will all get what we want, you will be the one that has to "deal with it" because the world progresses, albeit slowly, and the ultimate outcome of the GLBT community is equal rights.
Gay? not 100% as I still find women attractive and get turned on by them, I even sleep with them occasionally so no, I'm not completely gay, although I wouldn't mind if I was.

Freediver, are we allowed to discuss sexuality in an explicit context?

easel wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:37pm:

Freediver, are we allowed to discuss sexuality in an explicit context?

Fire away, but use some common sense, and bare in mind that I am a tad on the prudish side.

BTW, I am not FD.

I moderate this Sub-Forum.

queer - i hope you tell the women that you are gay and may be exposing them to diseases.
Maybe you should also tell them that you sleep with anything that moves. If it doesn't, you will push it.

I'll do my best Mod.


queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:17pm:

I feel that in the end, as we will all get what we want, you will be the one that has to "deal with it" because the world progresses, albeit slowly, and the ultimate outcome of the GLBT community is equal rights. Gay? not 100% as I still find women attractive and get turned on by them, I even sleep with them occasionally so no, I'm not completely gay, although I wouldn't mind if I was.

Alright mate. Question time.

Do you acknowledge there is a difference between an erection and being turned on? For example, you will often wake up in the morning in what appears to be a state of arousal whilst not being in the mood for sex, right?

Now, when you are with someone of the same sex, and you have an erection, do you notice you might get a tingle for want of a better description in your penis and you have trouble talking? When you are with someone of the opposite sex, do you get this same tingle and have a difficulty in engaging in conversation?

When you are with someone of the same sex, do you have no problem getting aroused without any touch, talk or suggestive body language?

When you are with someone of the opposite sex, is it harder for you to get aroused, ie there might be a need for touching, oral sex and affection in general?

Where as one might be emotional the other is purely physical? Or are you exactly the same with both?

I highly doubt this as you said you prefer men and rarely engage women.

queer wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:07pm:

Naturalism is flawed reasoning, by the same reasoning we can agree that we should never cut our hair or shave. We can also add to that that straight couples that cannot reproduce due to some defect on either partners part will result in them not having the right to adopt because they cannot reproduce naturally. Your reasoning is flawed form the start and reeks of prejudice.

Not really the same. My wife and I had the necessary equipment to make a child, we just needed some assistance in getting them together. Two men do not have the right equipment to make a baby, nor two women, no matter how much assistance is given. I think that's the difference.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 3:53pm:

queer - i hope you tell the women that you are gay and may be exposing them to diseases. Maybe you should also tell them that you sleep with anything that moves. If it doesn't, you will push it.

I don't tell them I'm gay because I'm not, I tell them I'm bi and they never have a problem with that. Yeah Yeah I know, we all carry diseases right? You're a misguided fool, haven't you ever heard of safe sex? I've never had a STD in my 30 years of existence. Nice bigotry there too, anything that moves? LMFAO.





Quote:

Do you acknowledge there is a difference between an erection and being turned on? For example, you will often wake up in the morning in what appears to be a state of arousal whilst not being in the mood for sex, right?

Naturally.


Quote:

Now, when you are with someone of the same sex, and you have an erection, do you notice you might get a tingle for want of a better description in your penis and you have trouble talking? When you are with someone of the opposite sex, do you get this same tingle and have a difficulty in engaging in conversation?

Never had what you describe with either, but its the same with either for me.



Quote:

When you are with someone of the same sex, do you have no problem getting aroused without any touch, talk or suggestive body language? When you are with someone of the opposite sex, is it harder for you to get aroused, ie there might be a need for touching, oral sex and affection in general?Where as one might be emotional the other is purely physical? Or are you exactly the same with both?

Its the same with both and takes the same work to get aroused by both.





Quote:

I highly doubt this as you said you prefer men and rarely engage women.

I prefer guys because I get along with them better than girls, thats why. I also don't sleep with as many women because its easier to get a guy than a girl but If I feel the need to get a girl I do just that.




jordan484 wrote on Sep 30^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:

queer wrote on Sep 30th, 2008 at 3:07pm: Naturalism is flawed reasoning, by the same reasoning we can agree that we should never cut our hair or shave. We can also add to that that straight couples that cannot reproduce due to some defect on either partners part will result in them not having the right to adopt because they cannot reproduce naturally. Your reasoning is flawed form the start and reeks of prejudice. Not really the same. My wife and I had the necessary equipment to make a child, we just needed some assistance in getting them together. Two men do not have the right equipment to make a baby, nor two women, no matter how much assistance is given. I think that's the difference.

Its still discrimination because if one person is allowed to adopt or have a surrogate child then any GLBT person should also be allowed to, its about equal rights as human beings.

There is a lot of positive information from studies regarding gay parents raising children and it won't be too long into the future that this will be considered "normal".  As long as the children grow up well balanced and happy - it shouldn't matter what orientation the parents are.


The American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health issued a report in 2002, the most recent comprehensive review of gay-parenting studies. It found no meaningful differences between children raised by gay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.

The committee reviewed scientific literature encompassing three broad sets of studies. The first set assessed the attitudes, behavior and adjustments of lesbian and gay parents and found, according to the AAP report, "more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers." Likewise, the research showed that lesbian mothers scored the same as heterosexual mothers in "self-esteem, psychologic adjustment and attitudes toward child rearing."

The second set of studies looked at the gender identity and sexual orientation of children raised by gay parents. The committee report found that none of the several hundred children studied evinced gender identity confusion, wished to be of the other sex or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences were found in the toy, game, activity, dress or friendship preferences of boys or girls with gay parents compared with those with heterosexual parents, nor any differences in sexual attraction or self-identification as gay.

The third research area discussed in the report covers children's emotional and social development. These studies have primarily compared children raised by lesbians who are divorced with children of divorced heterosexual mothers. No differences have been found in personality measures, peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic success and quality of family relationships. The studies suggest only one meaningful difference: Children of lesbian parents are "more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual."

The American Academy of Pediatrics report is the most prestigious of its kind, but it is not the only one. Most reviews of the social science research reach the same conclusion: The proposition that children suffer when raised by gay parents is without basis. Indeed, some evidence suggests that the only significant difference between children raised by same-sex couples and children raised by heterosexual couples is that the former feel freer to explore occupations and behaviors unhampered by traditional gender roles — a good thing, perhaps.

and in regard to fostering.....

Currently half a million children live in foster care in the United States and more than 100,000 foster children await adoption. States must recruit parents who are interested and able to foster and adopt children. Three states currently restrict GLB individuals or couples from adopting. Several states have or are considering policies that would restrict GLB people from fostering.

The report concludes with an assessment of how proposed bans on allowing GLB individuals and couples to foster might affect foster care systems and fostered children. We estimate the possible financial cost to states if they were to limit or deny GLB people the ability to foster, which could displace 9,000 to 14,000 children if pursued nationally. And while we cannot measure costs to children directly, we explore prior research suggesting that displacing children from their current foster homes may have harmful effects on the children’s development and well-being. The report closes with implications of this research for policymakers.

More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.

More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.

An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.

An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.

Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.

Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.

Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.

An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.

Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.

A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.

Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million.

Quote:

These studies have primarily compared children raised by lesbians who are divorced with children of divorced heterosexual mothers.

This sort of comparison is useless when determining how the father's absence in the home effects boys and girls. And it does.

queer
Quote:

I don't tell them I'm gay because I'm not, I tell them I'm bi and they never have a problem with that. Yeah Yeah I know, we all carry diseases right? You're a misguided fool, haven't you ever heard of safe sex? I've never had a STD in my 30 years of existence. Nice bigotry there too, anything that moves? LMFAO.

many people do have STDs. people more promiscuous have more STDs, people who bonk whoever moves will be most likely.
there are only men and women, and you bonk both. ie, whatever moves.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 10:37am:

queer Quote: I don't tell them I'm gay because I'm not, I tell them I'm bi and they never have a problem with that. Yeah Yeah I know, we all carry diseases right? You're a misguided fool, haven't you ever heard of safe sex? I've never had a STD in my 30 years of existence. Nice bigotry there too, anything that moves? LMFAO. many people do have STDs. people more promiscuous have more STDs, people who bonk whoever moves will be most likely. there are only men and women, and you bonk both. ie, whatever moves.

You homophobes always have to have a dig don't ya?, typical narrow minded bigots! Y'all cant just accept people for who they are, instead you must judge and convict them on a very small part of their existence.
Promiscuity doesn't = STD's as every guy I've ever been with practiced safe sex, safe sex is strongly promoted in the GLBT community and its only fools who don't take part in it. You can be promiscuous and practice safe sex ya know.

Quote:

You homophobes always have to have a dig don't ya?, typical narrow minded bigots! Y'all cant just accept people for who they are, instead you must judge and convict them on a very small part of their existence

Don't worry about what they say queer - each to their own.  You are honest about your sexuality and that is very brave.  Many bisexuals won't admit it and prefer to be secretive so they can't be criticised.

Bisexuality is commonplace and accepted amongst our youth today - it's just the older person who has trouble coming to terms that this isn't some rare condition similar to leprosy.

mantra wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 11:02am:

Quote: You homophobes always have to have a dig don't ya?, typical narrow minded bigots! Y'all cant just accept people for who they are, instead you must judge and convict them on a very small part of their existence Don't worry about what they say queer - each to their own.  You are honest about your sexuality and that is very brave.  Many bisexuals won't admit it and prefer to be secretive so they can't be criticised. Bisexuality is commonplace and accepted amongst our youth today - it's just the older person who has trouble coming to terms that this isn't some rare condition similar to leprosy.

Yeah I know, ya know homosexuality was taken off the list of mental illnesses in the 70's and classed as natural and more and more people are accepting it as natural everyday. One can observe homosexuality in many animals as well as humans. Going form the bigots point of view regarding nature, if it wasn't natural it wouldn't exist!

Quote:

This sort of comparison is useless when determining how the father's absence in the home effects boys and girls. And it does.

Yes it probably is Jordan - but there are so many kids these days who grow up without a father or one that just plays a small role.  

Two parents - regardless of what sex they are - should be better than one provided they have a loving relationship.  It's all about making our children feel secure and loved and if you look at some of the cases recently making headlines about slack heterosexual parents abandoning and killing their kids - why not give gay couples a chance to prove themselves?

Quote:

but there are so many kids these days who grow up without a father or one that just plays a small role.

Yep, and there are consequences, detrimental ones.


Quote:

Two parents - regardless of what sex they are - should be better than one provided they have a loving relationship.

 
It's not about how many parents a child has, it's about providing children with what they need. A mother is important, and so is a father, It doesn't matter how loving a gay couple may be, it's about providing the child with what they need.


Quote:

It's all about making our children feel secure and loved and if you look at some of the cases recently making headlines about slack heterosexual parents abandoning and killing their kids - why not give gay couples a chance to prove themselves?

It's partly making children feel secure and loved, but it's more than that. Sure there are bad heterosexual parents, and this is where we have learned the importance of good parenting and what children need from their parents. Gay couple are being given the chance, I just don't think it serves the children well. It is so much more than gay people claiming they have a right to children, it is about what's right for the children. If gay parents are providing a role model that is the opposite sex to themselves to their child, on a regular and positive basis, then that would be a start and a step in the right direction. But how many gay parents would actually do this, or even think that it would be important?

double post

queer wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 10:48am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:37am: queer Quote: I don't tell them I'm gay because I'm not, I tell them I'm bi and they never have a problem with that. Yeah Yeah I know, we all carry diseases right? You're a misguided fool, haven't you ever heard of safe sex? I've never had a STD in my 30 years of existence. Nice bigotry there too, anything that moves? LMFAO. many people do have STDs. people more promiscuous have more STDs, people who bonk whoever moves will be most likely. there are only men and women, and you bonk both. ie, whatever moves. You homophobes always have to have a dig don't ya?, typical narrow minded bigots! Y'all cant just accept people for who they are, instead you must judge and convict them on a very small part of their existence. Promiscuity doesn't = STD's as every guy I've ever been with practiced safe sex, safe sex is strongly promoted in the GLBT community and its only fools who don't take part in it. You can be promiscuous and practice safe sex ya know.

queer..why do you call yourself "queer"..seems a little self depracating to me.[get out my thesareus on that last one ]

I just believe bi sexuals are just as someone else said "horny"..

I dont believe that a gay set of parents can he a healthy role models to kids..its not the "norm" in society that 2 females or males sleep together and for a child to witness this as part of every day life cannot be good for his emtional quotient regarding the way nonmal homes/society/relationships  operate..for want of better description [tired- me not you : )].

I dont care if your bi , bilingual or bipolar personally, as long as you do practice safe sex you cant do any physical harm to your partners.

Having homosexual parents will present challenges for a child to deal with, but we are so far from having a system where families exhibit perfect role models in all areas, that we would have to question whether denying them the right to be parents based on their sexuality, is a fair place to start concerning ourselves with children's rights.

Economic, religious, social and environmental issues are also relevant to a child's life, but we do not restrict parenthood on any of those issues.

Single mums often have to raise kids without a strong male role model for them to identify with, should we ban them from having kids?

The bottom line is that any stable and loving home is better than many kids get, and if homosexual couples can provide that, I say good on them.

Quote:

Single mums often have to raise kids without a strong male role model for them to identify with, should we ban them from having kids?

Yes. If you mean should single women be having children? (not those who ended up single through death and divorce)

Well I wasn't expecting that!
I would like to see a perfect world where all kids were happy and well cared for, but I don't believe that only couples can provide that, I think there are issues with the least able to provide a good home environment having kids for the wrong reasons, but I don't see how we can legislate against stupid people to stop them breeding.

The baby bonus has been a case of enticing silly young girls into parenthood, and we will probably see a whole lot of kids who grow up on welfare because of it, so if  we should be using "bribes' as part of  the system, I would rather see them used to encourage kids to get jobs and a good education, rather than popping out kids.

I remember I attempted to have a gay experience when I was 18, because, for similar reasons to you said queer, it was much easier than trying to land a girl.

For about 10-20 minutes he tried to get me in the mood, and it just didn't work. At all. No matter what was tried. Kissing was off limits though... although that's usually the deal clincher for me, but I couldn't do that with a bloke.

Could you call me bisexual? You can't call me a bigot.

queer, if you were presented with a super hot guy, and a super hot girl, which one, if you could only choose one, would you have a purely physical relationship with?

oceanz wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 11:33am:

queer wrote on Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:48am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 1st, 2008 at 10:37am: queer Quote: I don't tell them I'm gay because I'm not, I tell them I'm bi and they never have a problem with that. Yeah Yeah I know, we all carry diseases right? You're a misguided fool, haven't you ever heard of safe sex? I've never had a STD in my 30 years of existence. Nice bigotry there too, anything that moves? LMFAO. many people do have STDs. people more promiscuous have more STDs, people who bonk whoever moves will be most likely. there are only men and women, and you bonk both. ie, whatever moves. You homophobes always have to have a dig don't ya?, typical narrow minded bigots! Y'all cant just accept people for who they are, instead you must judge and convict them on a very small part of their existence. Promiscuity doesn't = STD's as every guy I've ever been with practiced safe sex, safe sex is strongly promoted in the GLBT community and its only fools who don't take part in it. You can be promiscuous and practice safe sex ya know. queer..why do you call yourself "queer"..seems a little self depracating to me.[get out my thesareus on that last one ]

We GLBT people always use the word"Queer" to refer to ourselves.


Quote:

I just believe bi sexuals are just as someone else said "horny".. I dont believe that a gay set of parents can he a healthy role models to kids..its not the "norm" in society that 2 females or males sleep together and for a child to witness this as part of every day life cannot be good for his emtional quotient regarding the way nonmal homes/society/relationships  operate..for want of better description [tired- me not you : )]. I dont care if your bi , bilingual or bipolar personally, as long as you do practice safe sex you cant do any physical harm to your partners.

The "norm" as you say doesn't breed perfect kids, far from it. Why should we stick to the "norm" anyways? variation is what makes life wonderful.




easel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2008 at 1:59pm:

I remember I attempted to have a gay experience when I was 18, because, for similar reasons to you said queer, it was much easier than trying to land a girl. For about 10-20 minutes he tried to get me in the mood, and it just didn't work. At all. No matter what was tried. Kissing was off limits though... although that's usually the deal clincher for me, but I couldn't do that with a bloke. Could you call me bisexual? You can't call me a bigot. queer, if you were presented with a super hot guy, and a super hot girl, which one, if you could only choose one, would you have a purely physical relationship with?

It would depend on how I felt at the moment as to who I would choose, it varies on my mood and who I consider hotter.

Bi-sexuality is considered by the GLBT community as a legitimate orientation although we receive some discrimination from some people just like we do from straight people, we get labeled "not quite straight" and "not quite gay" so we cop it from both sides sometimes but this doesn't remove the fact that the majority of people accept us as  we are and our orientation as legit.

Just because you had a guy play with your dick for a little bit once doesn't make you bi sexual, it doesn't even make you GLBT friendly, most guys have had a gay experience at some time in their lives or will have one eventually (all my straight friends have had some kind of gay experience before anyways) and I can call you a bigot and you are one if you think, like you've demonstrated, that we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, that makes you prejudice, hence a bigot.

I'm not a bigot you arse bandit, children need mothers, and men do mothers not make.

easel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 9:50am:

I'm not a bigot you arse bandit, children need mothers, and men do mothers not make.

You are a bigot and you're in self denial about it too! You need to call me names to make yourself feel normal, to reaffirm your manliness, you show classic signs of homophobia. Its so contradictory of you to say in the same sentence "I'm not a bigot you ass bandit", don't you see that you contradict yourself? you are a bigot, 100% mate!

Shirt lifter, I told you, I'm not a bigot. Before you arrived I was doing my best to defend poofters from bigots and justify their behaviour on this website.

easel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 10:21am:

Shirt lifter, I told you, I'm not a bigot. Before you arrived I was doing my best to defend poofters from bigots and justify their behaviour on this website.

Then why attack us now then if you're so GLBT friendly? and why call us by a derogatory name? Why say we aren't entitled to equal rights?

queer wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 10:28am:

easel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 10:21am: Shirt lifter, I told you, I'm not a bigot. Before you arrived I was doing my best to defend poofters from bigots and justify their behaviour on this website. Then why attack us now then if you're so GLBT friendly? and why call us by a derogatory name? Why say we aren't entitled to equal rights?

We all have our prejudices I guess. We just need to recognise when prejudice is not useful. (A useful prejudice might be in objecting to having your daughter go out with a known drug dealer) I seem to remember reading that there is a lot of prejudice between gays and bisexuals too. Do you think that that's an accurate statement, queer?

The sad thing is that some people who are discriminated against often have a very strong prejudice against other minorities who have the same problem. For example in the US Mid West, many Italians and Greeks are incredibly racist against black people. You would think that they would learn from the prejudice that others hold for them.

muso wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 11:25am:

queer wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 10:28am: easel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 10:21am: Shirt lifter, I told you, I'm not a bigot. Before you arrived I was doing my best to defend poofters from bigots and justify their behaviour on this website. Then why attack us now then if you're so GLBT friendly? and why call us by a derogatory name? Why say we aren't entitled to equal rights? We all have our prejudices I guess. We just need to recognise when prejudice is not useful. (A useful prejudice might be in objecting to having your daughter go out with a known drug dealer) I seem to remember reading that there is a lot of prejudice between gays and bisexuals too. Do you think that that's an accurate statement, queer?

Theres certainly a few from what I hear but not very many. I've personally never met one who does and all the gay guys that I've ever met were very kind to me and treated me as an equal. Some gay guys don't regard themselves as "gay" but rather just plain "sexual" as in they enjoy sex. I regard myself as trisexual because I like guys, girls and transgendered people and trisexual more adequately describes my orientation than bisexual as transgendered people, at least pre-op, are the third sex.

Trysexual hey? So you'll try anything ? ;)

I've heard gay men describe themselves as poofters and fags and lesbians describe themselves as dykes, so why can't I do it?

easel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 1:24pm:

Trysexual hey? So you'll try anything ? ;) I've heard gay men describe themselves as poofters and fags and lesbians describe themselves as dykes, so why can't I do it?

Because your straight and when you do it it isn't funny, its offensive and comes across with derogatory tones.

queer wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 3:36pm:

easel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 1:24pm: Trysexual hey? So you'll try anything ? ;) I've heard gay men describe themselves as poofters and fags and lesbians describe themselves as dykes, so why can't I do it? Because your straight and when you do it it isn't funny, its offensive and comes across with derogatory tones.

You cannot get a "tone" from a post on a forum..tho many think they can read "tone" into a post..I had this happen to me recently..I was accused of being hostile when my words were bland and quite innoccuos when read without the bias of said "victim"..

I think in the end you need to toughen up..there are many pple out there who suffer the fools who espouse nasty racist generalisations and rhetoric based in their own ignorance..

as for why shouldnt gays be allowed to be parents?

I need to be blunt here..many believe [  not all] that gay men will sexually molest the child in their care..I've heard it said many times and Im not responsible for the veiws of those pple..nonetheless..the perception by many exists.

Children also need to live by the norms of society..simply because , like it or not gays are a minority and dont represent mainstream societal values.

oceanz wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 4:26pm:

queer wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 3:36pm: easel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 1:24pm: Trysexual hey? So you'll try anything ? ;) I've heard gay men describe themselves as poofters and fags and lesbians describe themselves as dykes, so why can't I do it? Because your straight and when you do it it isn't funny, its offensive and comes across with derogatory tones. You cannot get a "tone" from a post on a forum..tho many think they can read "tone" into a post..I had this happen to me recently..I was accused of being hostile when my words were bland and quite innoccuos when read without the bias of said "victim".. I think in the end you need to toughen up..there are many pple out there who suffer the fools who espouse nasty racist generalisations and rhetoric based in their own ignorance.. as for why shouldnt gays be allowed to be parents? I need to be blunt here..many believe [  not all] that gay men will sexually molest the child in their care..I've heard it said many times and Im not responsible for the veiws of those pple..nonetheless..the perception by many exists. Children also need to live by the norms of society..simply because , like it or not gays are a minority and dont represent mainstream societal values.

Yeah, all gays are pedophile rapists. ::) I've never understood this claim as we like guys not kids.
Why do people trust their children with catholic priests then? They are notorious for being kid fiddlers, although they get a fair go because they are "men of god." LMAO

Tell me, why is it that the vast majority of gay men over say, 35, crave young men with boyish looks and hairless bodies?

Quote:

Tell me, why is it that the vast majority of gay men over say, 35, crave young men with boyish looks and hairless bodies?

The same could be said of many women over 35 easel who crave the same thing.  Why do lesbians and straight older men crave beautiful, young girls?  

At least they crave young girls who are developed. Some gay men have a craving for young men who look almost child like.

OK then, since you think gay guys like little boys because they like men , from the same form of reasoning we can conclude that straight guys like little girls because they like women. See how stupid that reasoning is? Its biased and prejudiced and holds no substance!

Most women like guys with hairless bodies these days too so thats not even a relevant comparison. I didn't realize you were such an expert on what gay guys like, tell me, when did you come to be such an expert?

queer - I don't think that was th4 assertion.
There is a 10* more likelihood of a homo being a paedophile than a straight.
perhaps cause some of them just sleep with whomever is at hand. call them trisexuals if you want.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 8:05am:

queer - I don't think that was th4 assertion. There is a 10* more likelihood of a homo being a paedophile than a straight. perhaps cause some of them just sleep with whomever is at hand. call them trisexuals if you want.

No don't call them tri (3) sexuals, I've never read any stats that say GLBT people are more likely to be pedophiles.
Please don't associate that word with these vermin again.

we certainly agree the paedophiles are vermin queer.

my bad wording, i was not calling padophiles trisexuals in any way. Sorry


it was a possible reason why more homos are paedophiles than straights are. A link.

But in no way implies that a homo/trisexual is going to be a paedophile or that the homo community has any regard to paedophiles different to the vast majority of straights.

I think any responsible adult, regardless of their sexuality, would regard pedophiles as scum that should be executed and given no second chances. They violate the most sacred of trust, that of a child.

queer wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 8:08am:

No don't call them tri (3) sexuals, I've never read any stats that say GLBT people are more likely to be pedophiles. Please don't associate that word with these vermin again.

I'm pretty sure that only an extremely small proportion of homosexuals are pedophiles, however it also makes sense to me that a larger proportion of male homosexuals are likely to become pedophiles compared to straight men or lesbians.

Why? - because victims are much more likely to become pedophiles themselves when they grow up, will generally repeat the act and because the vast majority of pedophiles are men. It's self perpetuating.  

I tend to think that a lot more people are 'trisexual' especially when they are coming to terms with their sexuality early on in life. This is still a taboo subject, but a large proportion of those who are abused in their teens are likely to be conditioned by the act of abuse, even to the extent of deriving some pleasure from it, or at least some habituation, and will actively seek out their abuser. It's a sad fact that kids who come from a dysfunctional family devoid of love, or when there is violence, any form of love or attention could be regarded as better than nothing.  

We hear of many people who decide to take some legal action against their abusers many years after the abuse, when they realise that their lives have been screwed up by it.

Abused girls are much less likely to become pedophiles than men, but the effects are more likely to manifest themselves as drug abuse or even suicide.

So abhorrent though the act is, and before you talk about pedophiles as being scum that should be executed, consider that most of them are victims who were probably abused when they were younger.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 9:40am:

queer wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 8:08am: No don't call them tri (3) sexuals, I've never read any stats that say GLBT people are more likely to be pedophiles. Please don't associate that word with these vermin again. I'm pretty sure that only an extremely small proportion of homosexuals are pedophiles, however it also makes sense to me that a larger proportion of male homosexuals are likely to become pedophiles compared to straight men or lesbians. Why? - because victims are much more likely to become pedophiles themselves when they grow up, will generally repeat the act and because the vast majority of pedophiles are men. It's self perpetuating.   I tend to think that a lot more people are 'trisexual' especially when they are coming to terms with their sexuality early on in life. This is still a taboo subject, but a large proportion of those who are abused in their teens are likely to be conditioned by the act of abuse, even to the extent of deriving some pleasure from it, or at least some habituation, and will actively seek out their abuser. We hear of many people who decide to take some legal action against their abuser many years after the abuse, when they realise that their lives have been screwed up by it. Abused girls are much less likely to become pedophiles than men, but the effects are more likely to manifest themselves as drug abuse or even suicide. So abhorrent though the act is, and before you talk about pedophiles as being scum that should be executed, consider that most of them are victims who were probably abused when they were younger.

Regardless if they have been victim to abuse or not if they are pedophiles they should be executed, just because they were once a victim doesn't excuse or justify the act they them self commit.

Also, (and I'm not certain if you actually meant this) are you suggesting that a certain percentage of gay men are likely the result of being sexually abused? Not one guy I know has ever been sexually abused as a child. Being gay isn't a choice, its a natural thing, its genetics and if you are gay you are gay and can't change that fact, you may deny it but it doesn't change what is.

of course the act of being a homo is your choice.
Take some responbsibility for your own actions.

How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice."



And I resent it that homos use the word "gay' to describe themselves.

homos are no more gay (in the proper sense of the word) than anyone else.
Generally, they are far less happy.
Used to be, one could go out on the town and have a gay evening. ie, light frivolity.
Now a gay night means something entirely different.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 10:50am:

of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice." And I resent it that homos use the word "gay' to describe themselves. homos are no more gay (in the proper sense of the word) than anyone else. Generally, they are far less happy. Used to be, one could go out on the town and have a gay evening. ie, light frivolity. Now a gay night means something entirely different.

You have no idea what you're talking about, no one "chooses" to be gay and "chooses" to be attracted to the same sex, its a natural feeling that arises. Just the same as you don't "choose" to be attracted to women, you just naturally are so, if you don't understand this theres something wrong with you. Most people accept this as fact, which it is.

Theres been people who wished they weren't gay because of the difficulties it causes among friends and family but theres nothing they can do about it, they naturally are what they are and no amount of subjective opinions will change that fact.

I sense you have a real problem with GLBT people, well I have a news flash for ya, we're hear, we're queer and we ain't going anywhere. Either accept it and get over yourself or continue to be a bigot and discriminate against good people. Either way it doesn't effect us as we are used to dealing with bigoted people, its no problem and we get satisfaction from the fact that we bother you more than you bother us.

queer wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 9:51am:

Regardless if they have been victim to abuse or not if they are pedophiles they should be executed, just because they were once a victim doesn't excuse or justify the act they them self commit. Also, (and I'm not certain if you actually meant this) are you suggesting that a certain percentage of gay men are likely the result of being sexually abused? Not one guy I know has ever been sexually abused as a child. Being gay isn't a choice, its a natural thing, its genetics and if you are gay you are gay and can't change that fact, you may deny it but it doesn't change what is.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Would all the guys you know automatically give you that information? At what stage would you draw the line between abuse and normal sexual behaviour? Is it a question of age difference? What if both partners are 16? - or one partner is 16 and another 20? - or one partner is 16 and the other partner is 40?  Is the oldest partner always the abuser? What if the younger person seduces the older?

Actually I think that's it's a combination of nature and nurture. I think that many people are predisposed towards gaiety(?) (LOL - What's the right term?) but I also tend to think there is a continuum for some people and your point in the sexual spectrum depends on life experiences - both short term and long term. For example if a person with such a predisposition experiments at an early age and enjoys his first sexual experience, then each time he repeats it, he expects that he will enjoy it more based on the previous experience, and it becomes more and more entrenched through habituation.  As another example, if someone who is marginally gay meets a gorgeous woman who pushes all their buttons, they are less likely to pursue sex with men. (It seems reasonable to me)

I'm about as unprejudiced as you can get regarding homosexuality. I 've never regarded Gay people as being any kind of threat, but the actual thought of two men going hammer and tongs together still makes me ill. I can't help it - It's a physiological reaction . Despite of that, I still firmly believe that we should not persecute people for what comes naturally.

To put it succinctly, most men have a biological need to ejaculate. Just exactly how they do that is not my concern as long as they do it safely and with due regard to their partners.

A regular on one of my my forums (I've never met him in real life) sent me a zip file which included some pictures that he wanted posted, but unfortunately a few extras which he didn't intend to send me. I was more amused than disgusted. I told him that they didn't do anything for me, and he was totally mortified. I told him not to worry about it, and he called me a 'renaissance man'. I still don't know what he meant by that, but I regarded it as a valued compliment.

queer wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 10:59am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 10:50am: of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice." And I resent it that homos use the word "gay' to describe themselves. homos are no more gay (in the proper sense of the word) than anyone else. Generally, they are far less happy. Used to be, one could go out on the town and have a gay evening. ie, light frivolity. Now a gay night means something entirely different. You have no idea what you're talking about, no one "chooses" to be gay and "chooses" to be attracted to the same sex, its a natural feeling that arises. Just the same as you don't "choose" to be attracted to women, you just naturally are so, if you don't understand this theres something wrong with you. Most people accept this as fact, which it is. Theres been people who wished they weren't gay because of the difficulties it causes among friends and family but theres nothing they can do about it, they naturally are what they are and no amount of subjective opinions will change that fact. I sense you have a real problem with GLBT people, well I have a news flash for ya, we're hear, we're queer and we ain't going anywhere. Either accept it and get over yourself or continue to be a bigot and discriminate against good people. Either way it doesn't effect us as we are used to dealing with bigoted people, its no problem and we get satisfaction from the fact that we bother you more than you bother us.

Queer( self advertising again!!)..


I dont get it that most homosexuals announce to the world that theyre "gay"..like its something new and novel..in fact they really only really define who they are by their sexuality and push the point endlessly..the  obvious form of this is the gay that "minces " up the street with his tongue in his bfs ear...then screams "discrimination "at the top of his lungs..if anyone dares point it out or becomes offended by it..many become offended by anyone who displays their sexuality in public let alone gays..pple dont want to see your private life lived out in public..and that goes for anyone.

get over yourself..what you do in your bouduoir is boring...we dont give a sh it.

I think gays do  define themselves by their sexuality and most of society is bored and sick to death by their perverted obsession of who they favour with their genitals and what they do with them..PUKE!!!!



Dont gays have anything else going for them?. Isnt our sexuality only a small part of who we are as humans???


Do you just want to be known as the bloke who called himself a "BI". Is that all you want to be?

On your headstone will be inscribed.."Here lies Queer..he was a good bloke ..but apart from being a bisexual we dont know to much else about him as a person- pity"


A lot of young boys have been molested by gays as children..fact and I know 2 friends this happened too..they are both now gay...they will never have a normal life thanks to the pigs who got to them as small boys and psychogically ruined them.

Humans are not defined by their sexuality..if they are ..they need to get a life/hobby/job/brain etc.

Gays know the rules..the Church does not recognise gay marriage for a good reason. Marriage is  about procreation and protecting children within the construct of marriage..

Gays dont need marriage..civil ceremonies are fine.

easel wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2008 at 7:35pm:

At least they crave young girls who are developed. Some gay men have a craving for young men who look almost child like.

This raises a question for me too...why is it seemingly most men like to see a woman shaved/hairlless "down there"?..is it they secretly want their sex partners to look like pre pubesecnt girls?
Sorry mod if I've overstepped the mark here but it does go to the same question...

I am interested to know,as the concept offends me somewhat .

delete this post if you want

oceanz wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 3:47pm:

easel wrote on Oct 2nd, 2008 at 7:35pm: At least they crave young girls who are developed. Some gay men have a craving for young men who look almost child like. This raises a question for me too...why is it seemingly most men like to see a woman shaved/hairlless "down there"?..is it they secretly want their sex partners to look like pre pubesecnt girls? Sorry mod if I've overstepped the mark here but it does go to the same question... I am interested to know,as the concept offends me somewhat . delete this post if you want

I don't know what it is. Maybe it is a desire for them to appear young laying dormant beneath the surface. Or maybe it is a cosmetic issue and they prefer to be able to have a good view? I hear lesbians love a bit of fur.

Also, I hear Muslims are supposed to remove their pubic hair.

I agree with you and your views on people identifying themselves by their sexuality. They all say they don't care about it and it's not an issue, yet they harp on about it and after 2 beers/wines any dyke/poof will volunteer the information even if it is unrelated to the conversation at hand.

oceanz wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 3:17pm:

queer wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 10:59am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 10:50am: of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice." And I resent it that homos use the word "gay' to describe themselves. homos are no more gay (in the proper sense of the word) than anyone else. Generally, they are far less happy. Used to be, one could go out on the town and have a gay evening. ie, light frivolity. Now a gay night means something entirely different. You have no idea what you're talking about, no one "chooses" to be gay and "chooses" to be attracted to the same sex, its a natural feeling that arises. Just the same as you don't "choose" to be attracted to women, you just naturally are so, if you don't understand this theres something wrong with you. Most people accept this as fact, which it is. Theres been people who wished they weren't gay because of the difficulties it causes among friends and family but theres nothing they can do about it, they naturally are what they are and no amount of subjective opinions will change that fact. I sense you have a real problem with GLBT people, well I have a news flash for ya, we're hear, we're queer and we ain't going anywhere. Either accept it and get over yourself or continue to be a bigot and discriminate against good people. Either way it doesn't effect us as we are used to dealing with bigoted people, its no problem and we get satisfaction from the fact that we bother you more than you bother us. Queer( self advertising again!!).. I dont get it that most homosexuals announce to the world..in fact only really define who they are by their sexuality..the  obvious form of this is the gay that "minces " up the street with his tongue in his bfs ear...then screams "discrimination "at the top of his lungs..if anyone dares point it out or becomes offended by it..many become offended by anyone who displays their sexuality in public let alone gays..pple dont want to see your private life lived out in public..and that goes for anyone. get over yourself..what you do in your bouduoir is boring...we dont give a sh it. I think gays define themselves by their sexuality and most of society is bored and sick to death by their perverted obsession of who they favour with their genitals and what they do with them..PUKE!!!! Dont gays have anything else going for them?. Isnt our sexuality only a small part of who we are as humans??? Do you just want to be known as the bloke who called himself a "BI". Is that all you want to be? On your headstone will be inscribed.."Here lies Queer..he was a good bloke ..but apart from being a bisexual we dont know to much else about him as a person- pity" A lot of young boys have been molested by gays as children..fact and I know 2 friends this happened too..they are both now gay...they will never have a normal life thanks to the pigs who got to them as small boys and psychogically ruined them. Humans are not defined by their sexuality..if they are ..they need to get a life/hobby/job/brain etc. Gays know the rules..the Church does not recognise gay marriage for a good reason. Marriage is a about procreation and protecting children within the construct of marriage.. Gays dont need marriage..civil ceremonies are fine.

We don't define ourselves via our sexuality, although when you consider the treatment GLBT people have received in the past just for being who they are does a little pride really surprise you so much!?!?!?! Its in the same way as black pride, blacks were repressed for so many years and finally when they get equal opportunities or look like they may get the same opportunities as whites they feel proud about it, I don't expect you to understand because you don't need to fight everyday just to be classed as an equal citizen with the same cares, needs and worries as everyone else.

No one needs marriage, its an over rated load of crap, swamped in religious dogmas and "sacred" meanings. Just because the church doesn't recognize gay marriage doesn't mean jack, the church, especially the catholic but not limited to, is a bullshit institution anyways. Religion has killed more people than all the worlds wars combined. But if GLBT people want to get married, who knows why, I will defend their right to do so.

queer -
Quote:

.......or continue to be a bigot and ....

Oh, I can't help but be a bigot. It is in my genes !!
hahaha - that is your pathetic reason for shagging anyone who has a hole anywhere.

Of course homos define themselves by their homosexuality - proof is your name - "queer."
Got the rainbow flag to wave also ???

Marriage is for man and woman.  Or would you rather goats, cats and trees could marry also ? Just so as to not discriminate against them ???

I remember one time this girl and I saw two doves being affectionate, like rubbing their necks on each other and then they even started kissing, so we married them and had a ceremony for like 2 minutes.

Hahaha.

That's a beautful thing you did there Easel .

:)

queer wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 10:59am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 10:50am: of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice." And I resent it that homos use the word "gay' to describe themselves. homos are no more gay (in the proper sense of the word) than anyone else. Generally, they are far less happy. Used to be, one could go out on the town and have a gay evening. ie, light frivolity. Now a gay night means something entirely different. You have no idea what you're talking about, no one "chooses" to be gay and "chooses" to be attracted to the same sex, its a  natural feeling that arises. Just the same as you don't "choose" to be attracted to women, you just naturally are so, if you don't understand this theres something wrong with you. Most people accept this as fact, which it is. Theres been people who wished they weren't gay because of the difficulties it causes among friends and family but theres nothing they can do about it, they naturally are what they are and no amount of subjective opinions will change that fact. I sense you have a real problem with GLBT people, well I have a news flash for ya, we're hear, we're queer and we ain't going anywhere. Either accept it and get over yourself or continue to be a bigot and discriminate against good people. Either way it doesn't effect us as we are used to dealing with bigoted people, its no problem and we get satisfaction from the fact that we bother you more than you bother us.

apparently you do queer..or do you want to have sex with both men and women?

If so you cant be naturally attracted to both men and women..I believe bisexuality is a choice.

Bisexuality is also dangerous..there have been instances where bisexuals have infected pregnant wives with the aids virus with catastrophic consequences-

How does a bisexual man explain this to his pregnant wife and child whom he has handed a death sentence.?

I dont expect you to have the answers to these questions"queer"...as you dont seem to think very much about the consequences of your actions..but what about the rights of innocents.?

Or is beyond the average gay and lesbo to think of anyone other than themselves?



Boo f*king hoo to the gay and lesbians..and do not compare them to black races..black people dont have a choice...you do.

Yeah queer, you have a choice to like men or women, because you are bi.

I know this guy who calls himself bi. He admires women's beauty but doesn't find them sexually attractive. He even tried to have sex with a girl but couldn't finish the job. I think he does it because it is more acceptable among males to at least like both rather than being straight up gay.

Apparently bisexuality among women is not uncommon according to that article and has proof, so maybe if you were born transgender male-female you could be bisexual? I think most trannies are just over feminine gay men though. Do you think true transexuals are like XX men and XY women?

easel wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 7:32pm:

Yeah queer, you have a choice to like men or women, because you are bi. I know this guy who calls himself bi. He admires women's beauty but doesn't find them sexually attractive. He even tried to have sex with a girl but couldn't finish the job. I think he does it because it is more acceptable among males to at least like both rather than being straight up gay. Apparently bisexuality among women is not uncommon according to that article and has proof, so maybe if you were born transgender male-female you could be bisexual? I think most trannies are just over feminine gay men though. Do you think true transexuals are like XX men and XY women?

As far as I know most trannies feel they are 100% women so they are not actually gay, they are straight but born in the wrong body.


Quote:

Of course homos define themselves by their homosexuality - proof is your name - "queer."

Yeah, ok, I define myself from a online screen moniker, idiot.


Let me ask you people something, does being assholes to me make you feel big and better? cause all you're doing is proving your intolerance by your pathetic discrimination. It doesn't actually make me feel anything but disgust for the human race in general, it doesn't hurt me or make me feel bad about my actions.

Quote:

Let me ask you people something, does being assholes to me make you feel big and better? cause all you're doing is proving your intolerance by your pathetic discrimination. It doesn't actually make me feel anything but disgust for the human race in general, it doesn't hurt me or make me feel bad about my actions.

Queer - you would get a similar reaction from some of the posters on this forum if you were a Muslim or a black person.   They are not singling you out because you are bisexual - it's because you are being honest.  Start being a hypocrite and they might be a little more accepting.

You must know by now that people fear what they don't understand.  Those who attack you have their own deep, dark secrets but by abusing you - it makes them feel a little better and "normal".

mantra wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 9:17am:

Quote: Let me ask you people something, does being assholes to me make you feel big and better? cause all you're doing is proving your intolerance by your pathetic discrimination. It doesn't actually make me feel anything but disgust for the human race in general, it doesn't hurt me or make me feel bad about my actions. Queer - you would get a similar reaction from some of the posters on this forum if you were a Muslim or a black person.   They are not singling you out because you are bisexual - it's because you are being honest.  Start being a hypocrite and they might be a little more accepting. You must know by now that people fear what they don't understand.  Those who attack you have their own deep, dark secrets but by abusing you - it makes them feel a little better and "normal".

They don't understand it alright, they think bisexuality and homosexuality are a damn choice!

It wouldn't surprise me if these few people are closet fags/dykes!

Honesty is its best defense and only a fool would prefer lies.

Quote:

Honesty is its best defense and only a fool would prefer lies.

They doth protest too much.  


Republican Senator Larry Craig lightly tapped his foot in an airport washroom toilet stall, yet for the explosion of scrutiny and criticism that followed, he might as well have stepped on a landmine.

That's because his case, and a recent spate of others involving right wing, social conservative politicians and pastors embroiled in gay sex scandals in the United States, have exposed an awkward psychological tension between an ideology mostly identified as anti-gay, and its foot soldiers who happen to have sex with men.

Some call it tragic, others call it the height of hypocrisy, but perhaps what is most interesting is what might be going on inside the minds of these men who are having sex with men one minute, and then publicly condemning it the next.

"These are men who have spoken up against gay rights and are getting quickies in the men's washroom," says Kevin Alderson, associate professor of counselling psychology at the University of Calgary. "They're putting themselves down for it and therefore putting down everyone else engaging in these activities, when it's a part of who they are."

The psychological mechanisms behind this behaviour are complex. Experts say they range from lingering homophobia to compartmentalization of feelings they don't accept in themselves.

Craig's case has become notorious around the world because the 62-year-old senator from Idaho pleaded guilty on Aug. 8 after an undercover officer arrested him for what the officer said was a sexual advance on him in a Minnesota airport men's washroom.

The officer, part of a sting operation on public sex at the airport, described the foot tapping as just one of the signals men seeking anonymous sex use from the other side of the toilet stall.

Meanwhile, Craig, who resigned yesterday, has voiced his opposition to gay rights issues in public statements and legislative votes. Last year, he supported a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions.

He also happened to be one of the loudest critics in supporting the impeachment of Bill Clinton during the former president's own sex scandal. "I would submit that if a generation of young people are taught by our actions in this case that a lie carries no consequences," he said, "then the nation is at risk."

Last week Craig said he regrets pleading guilty to the charge. "I am not gay," he added, "and never have been gay."

Then there's Florida Republican state Sen. Bob Allen, who is fighting charges similar to Craig's, that he offered to pay $20 to perform a sex act on a plainclothes officer whom he encountered in a park men's washroom.

Allen was also a family values politician, darling of the religious right, and, in fact, the sponsor of numerous sex-related bills, including one instituting harsher penalties for lewd and lascivious acts.

Ted Haggard was, until last year, the pastor at one of the biggest megachurches in the U.S. and leader of the National Evangelical Association, which represents 30 million evangelical Christians. He also held influence at the White House.

He spoke out frequently against homosexuality and gay marriage. Then a former male prostitute went public, saying he had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard, and that the minister used crystal methamphetamine. Haggard resigned his positions, admitted "sexual immorality" and said he bought, but didn't use, the drug.

And last September, the Mark Foley scandal swept across Washington. Foley, a Republican Congressman – a crusader against child sex offenders – was exposed for sending sexually explicit Internet messages to an underage male congressional page.

In looking at cases such as these, psychologists point to seminal research on sexual arousal and homophobia, published in 1996.

The study measured male sexual arousal and found that homophobic males were aroused by explicit homosexual images but non-homophobic males were not.

While it doesn't mean that all homophobic men are gay, "it's curious that the men rated higher in homophobia had higher penile arousal than those who did not," says Trevor Hart, a Toronto clinical psychologist and professor at Ryerson University.

"It's possible, with the support of the study, that some of these men are in a bit of denial about their own feelings," Hart says.

Another possibility, he notes, is that men who engage in illicit sex acts rather than romantic relationships with same-sex partners are "quite aware of what they're doing, trying to promote their careers by making statements against gays to suggest how not gay they are."

http://www.thestar.com/article/252388

yep, its always the closet gays that protest against homosexuality the loudest.

I'm not suggesting that those on this forum who are giving you a hard time are closet gays - but they have certain beliefs which are reinforced by the "pillars of our society" who often have double standards.  These moralists preach one set of values as being of the highest christian value - yet practise another way of life in secret which they publicly condemn as being sinful.

Life would be easier if everyone was honest and accepted the lifestyles, beliefs and predispositions of others.

mantra wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 11:56am:

I'm not suggesting that those on this forum who are giving you a hard time are closet gays - but they have certain beliefs which are reinforced by the "pillars of our society" who often have double standards.  These moralists preach one set of values as being of the highest christian value - yet practise another way of life in secret which they publicly condemn as being sinful. Life would be easier if everyone was honest and accepted the lifestyles, beliefs and predispositions of others.

It would be nice if they weren't so contradictory, they say "I'm not a bigot" yet continue to show bigoted behavior towards me.
People need to wake up and realize that we only have one life then we die so why be a bigoted jerk in this life when its easier to be nice? People like nice people, they don't like bigots. In my opinion theres no time nor room in life for racism, discrimination and hate towards others because they aren't like me, variety is what makes life so good and we all just need to accept that. Life is too short for discrimination and hate, the sooner people realize this the sooner they become better human beings.

Quote:

It would be nice if they weren't so contradictory, they say "I'm not a bigot" yet continue to show bigoted behavior towards me. People need to wake up and realize that we only have one life then we die so why be a bigoted jerk in this life when its easier to be nice? People like nice people, they don't like bigots. In my opinion theres no time nor room in life for racism, discrimination and hate towards others because they aren't like me, variety is what makes life so good and we all just need to accept that. Life is too short for discrimination and hate, the sooner people realize this the sooner they become better human beings.

I agree with you completely Queer in your statement.  The average person is nice - it's just forums bring out the worst in some people.  Maybe it's because they can be anonymous - but I'm always surprised at personal attacks from the most unlikely posters.

I get my fair share of abuse as well and I'm straight, white and an atheist - but when it happens, although it can hurt at times - it just points out the inadequacies of the attacker.  It's usually obvious they are the ones who are in the most pain.

mantra wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 12:39pm:

Quote: It would be nice if they weren't so contradictory, they say "I'm not a bigot" yet continue to show bigoted behavior towards me. People need to wake up and realize that we only have one life then we die so why be a bigoted jerk in this life when its easier to be nice? People like nice people, they don't like bigots. In my opinion theres no time nor room in life for racism, discrimination and hate towards others because they aren't like me, variety is what makes life so good and we all just need to accept that. Life is too short for discrimination and hate, the sooner people realize this the sooner they become better human beings. I agree with you completely Queer in your statement.  The average person is nice - it's just forums bring out the worst in some people.  Maybe it's because they can be anonymous - but I'm always surprised at personal attacks from the most unlikely posters. I get my fair share of abuse as well and I'm straight, white and an atheist - but when it happens, although it can hurt at times - it just points out the inadequacies of the attacker.  It's usually obvious they are the ones who are in the most pain.

Well said mantra and i agree with you completely. ;)

btw what do you think of married bisexuals who infect unborn

babies with the aids virus?

Quote:

btw what do you think of married bisexuals who infect unborn babies with the aids virus?

It's obvious they haven't been honest with the person they impregnated and are leading a double life or haven't used adequate protection.  They should be imprisoned.   Anyone who knowingly spreads a disease should.  I don't think being a married bisexual is that uncommon and this doesn't just apply to men - plenty of females are as well.  

The same could be said of drug users having unprotected sex and this is pretty common - whether they're straight, bi or tri.

mantra wrote on Oct 4^th, 2008 at 5:17pm:

Quote: btw what do you think of married bisexuals who infect unborn babies with the aids virus? It's obvious they haven't been honest with the person they impregnated and are leading a double life or haven't used adequate protection.  They should be imprisoned.   Anyone who knowingly spreads a disease should.  I don't think being a married bisexual is that uncommon and this doesn't just apply to men - plenty of females are as well.   The same could be said of drug users having unprotected sex and this is pretty common - whether they're straight, bi or tri.

I would like to bet that most pregnant females go out of their way to protect their unborn.

Im not sure of anyone who knowingly spreads a disease..I think some just dont think about what or who they "do".

Drug users most certainly..but we are talking of gay parents here.

I am able to say what I think and do not use the luxury of being "invisible".


And as for bigotory..that word applies to most of us..me, you and queer...he is intolerant of straight pple..and their veiws.

Bigotory/intolerance is human  trait and  is not a dirty word.

Where's a good place to meet other lesbians? Like are there any places/hobbies which are undisclosed which are known lesbianish activities? Apart from feminist clubs.

Quote:

Where's a good place to meet other lesbians? Like are there any places/hobbies which are undisclosed which are known lesbianish activities? Apart from feminist clubs.

Golly easel - what a question!!  I, for one, have no idea.  When I was younger though I was approached by a couple, but only through the workplace and didn't feel inclined to take up their offers.  

You could ask Sappho, Oceans, Bliss or Neferti - I think they're the only other females on this forum and maybe they could steer you in the right direction.  

Why would you want to know?  I thought you were a boy.

Quote:

Drug users most certainly..but we are talking of gay parents here.

Gay couples in a relationship would be far less likely to have diseases than promiscuous heterosexuals I would assume.  Lesbians using IVF would be fully tested for diseases and no doubt gay males wanting to adopt would be as well.

Single gay men, drug users and promiscuous heterosexuals would be those most likely to contract aids - but the onus for protection should be the responsibility of BOTH people - not just one.  

If in doubt - don't and unless you've know your partner since he/she was a virgin or had them tested prior to conceiving a child - the mother should be held accountable as well.  There is the odd exception of course if her partner is dishonest and leading a double life and pretending he is "straight".

Just because one is bisexual doesn't mean one carries diseases, safe sex is always practiced by 99% of bi and gay men. I've never had unsafe sex with guys and never had a STD. Every girlfriend I've ever had hasn't had a problem with my bisexuality, some of them have been bisexual them self.

BTW, I'm not intolerant of straight people, I'm intolerant of intolerance and bigotry, theres a major difference!

queer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:02am:

Just because one is bisexual doesn't mean one carries diseases, safe sex is always practiced by 99% of bi and gay men. I've never had unsafe sex with guys and never had a STD. Every girlfriend I've ever had hasn't had a problem with my bisexuality, some of them have been bisexual them self. BTW, I'm not intolerant of straight people, I'm intolerant of intolerance and bigotry, theres a major difference!

Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/

Everyone is intolerant of some veiw and or opinion..Intolerance and bigotory are the same thing.

I dont know anything about Lesbianism/Lesbians.

oceanz wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

queer wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:02am: Just because one is bisexual doesn't mean one carries diseases, safe sex is always practiced by 99% of bi and gay men. I've never had unsafe sex with guys and never had a STD. Every girlfriend I've ever had hasn't had a problem with my bisexuality, some of them have been bisexual them self. BTW, I'm not intolerant of straight people, I'm intolerant of intolerance and bigotry, theres a major difference! Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/ Everyone is intolerant of some veiw and or opinion..Intolerance and bigotory are the same thing. I dont know anything about Lesbianism/Lesbians.

I'm a communist and part of that ideology is promotion of tolerance, I accept everyone no matter their religion, sex, race etc, except bourgeois capitalists as they are destroying the world and exploit the working class and don't need tolerating because they are a negative force that take and exploit all they can. So if I have one intolerance it is that, its not a personal prejudice but a political one.

queer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:33am:

oceanz wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:26am: queer wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:02am: Just because one is bisexual doesn't mean one carries diseases, safe sex is always practiced by 99% of bi and gay men. I've never had unsafe sex with guys and never had a STD. Every girlfriend I've ever had hasn't had a problem with my bisexuality, some of them have been bisexual them self. BTW, I'm not intolerant of straight people, I'm intolerant of intolerance and bigotry, theres a major difference! Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/ Everyone is intolerant of some veiw and or opinion..Intolerance and bigotory are the same thing. I dont know anything about Lesbianism/Lesbians. I'm a communist and part of that ideology is promotion of tolerance, I accept everyone no matter their religion, sex, race etc, except bourgeois capitalists as they are destroying the world and exploit the working class and don't need tolerating because they are a negative force that take and exploit all they can. So if I have one intolerance it is that, its not a personal prejudice but a political one.

well bully for you queer..and if your so smart..stick to one sex and aviod a lot of pain for yourself..and others..

late for work. BYE.

oceanz wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:42am:

queer wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:33am: oceanz wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:26am: queer wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:02am: Just because one is bisexual doesn't mean one carries diseases, safe sex is always practiced by 99% of bi and gay men. I've never had unsafe sex with guys and never had a STD. Every girlfriend I've ever had hasn't had a problem with my bisexuality, some of them have been bisexual them self. BTW, I'm not intolerant of straight people, I'm intolerant of intolerance and bigotry, theres a major difference! Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/ Everyone is intolerant of some veiw and or opinion..Intolerance and bigotory are the same thing. I dont know anything about Lesbianism/Lesbians. I'm a communist and part of that ideology is promotion of tolerance, I accept everyone no matter their religion, sex, race etc, except bourgeois capitalists as they are destroying the world and exploit the working class and don't need tolerating because they are a negative force that take and exploit all they can. So if I have one intolerance it is that, its not a personal prejudice but a political one. well bully for you queer..and if your so smart..stick to one sex and aviod a lot of pain for yourself..and others.. late for work. BYE.

Being bi/gay/lesbian isn't a choice, even scientists will verify this as a fact. So get over the whole "you can choose" idea because it ain't happening. I cause myself no pain, you bigots cause me no pain so I don't know where you get this idea from. If the sexual orientation of perfect strangers cause you bigots pain then you need to get a life.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2008 at 10:50am:

of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice."

Do you extend that to people with Down's syndrome? - or birds of prey? Does an eagle choose to live a nepharious life of killing other living creatures?

How do you know that homosexuals choose their lifestyle? Is there something you're not telling us?

muso wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 3rd, 2008 at 10:50am: of course the act of being a homo is your choice. Take some responbsibility for your own actions. How weak, to pursue a homo lifestyle then stand back and say "it was not my choice." Do you extend that to people with Down's syndrome? - or birds of prey? Does an eagle choose to live a nepharious life of killing other living creatures? How do you know that homosexuals choose their lifestyle? Is there something you're not telling us?

I dont get that from anything Sprint has written muso.

I too believe gays for the large part choose they're life...to say they dont means we would then have to question why it is society condemns pedophiles so violently?..for they say too that they prefer children..its their choice. They would never admit, like a gay , that they prefer to defile children ..they mostly say its part of who they are.


The eagle/Downs syndrome thing i dont get.


Would you be so willing to excuse  a pedophile the same way muso.?

They say they are born that way too?

They are expected not to act on their impulses tho' arent they?

Stop comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, they aren't connected in any way, they are two entirely different subjects not interrelated to one another.  Do you choose to be a hetero? Or are you just naturally inclined that way? Did you ever reach a point in your life and decide " I will be heterosexual"? Of course not, you are naturally inclined to it and go about it with no thought on the matter the same way homosexuals do so. You may choose your partner but you don't choose which sex to be attracted to, one cannot switch off and on emotions and attraction just like a switch, if you could you could decide to be gay today and automatically find yourself attracted to men/women, but no it doesn't work like that. One is naturally attracted to the opposite sex or they are not, it not an option its an instinct which is perfectly natural and gives the individual concerned no say in the matter, science makes this perfectly clear to the rest of the world so why cant you comprehend it?!?!?!

Pedophilia is a disease, a mental imbalance and no one  is naturally a pedophile like they are hetero or gay.

queer wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 4:19pm:

Stop comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, they aren't connected in any way.... Pedophilia is a disease, a mental imbalance and no one  is naturally a pedophile like they are hetero or gay.

some pple think this about homosexuality...do you believe that?

and why is it if Homos are naturally draw to their own sex..why in the same way a pedo is not drawn to children..?

I just dont agree with you..pedos most likely are pre programmed that way the way you say you are.

mantra wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 7:01am:

Quote: Where's a good place to meet other lesbians? Like are there any places/hobbies which are undisclosed which are known lesbianish activities? Apart from feminist clubs. Golly easel - what a question!!  I, for one, have no idea.  When I was younger though I was approached by a couple, but only through the workplace and didn't feel inclined to take up their offers.   You could ask Sappho, Oceans, Bliss or Neferti - I think they're the only other females on this forum and maybe they could steer you in the right direction.   Why would you want to know?  I thought you were a boy.

oceanz wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 9:26am:

Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/

When I was 17 I was playing around with this girl who was very pretty in a tomboyish way, she was like 23. Turns out she was a lesbian and thought I was one too, which is actually kind of concerning.

I didn't know she was a lesbian. Either way, I've never met a girl who was that gentle before, and I need to find more lesbians.

I can't go join Curves (the gym) although I'm sure that would be a great place to find some.

Also, queer, male bisexuality is just horny guys. Only women can be truly bisexual. According to these scientists you refer to.

Mantra said:


Quote:

You could ask Sappho, Oceans, Bliss or Neferti - I think they're the only other females on this forum and maybe they could steer you in the right direction.   Why would you want to know?  I thought you were a boy.

Gee thanks, Mantra for mentioning my name!  I am white female and VERY straight. I like males!  :o Mantra, the f-word is sometimes the ONLY way to express your absolute annoyance in these situations. ;D I know who I am.  

;)

Tell me then.  Who are you?  So far we know you are white, and VERY straight.  

I reckon you are telling the truth.

oceanz wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:

queer wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 4:19pm: Stop comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, they aren't connected in any way.... Pedophilia is a disease, a mental imbalance and no one  is naturally a pedophile like they are hetero or gay. some pple think this about homosexuality...do you believe that? and why is it if Homos are naturally draw to their own sex..why in the same way a pedo is not drawn to children..? I just dont agree with you..pedos most likely are pre programmed that way the way you say you are.

The thing with pedophiles is that they take advantage of and abuse children, they aren't two consenting adults who know what they are doing. The child isn't mature enough to consent, hence the child is the victim in it. The pedophile is a diseased individual, he thinks that sex with children is fine, but no other adults thinks this and considering the maturity of the child it is classed as wrong and children must be protected. It doesn't really matter if pedophiles are diseased or naturally inclined to their actions, the bottom line is that they abuse children and must be stopped at all costs. It (pedophilia) can't be compared to two consenting adults of either sex in any way shape or form.

Quote:

Gee thanks, Mantra for mentioning my name!  I am white female and VERY straight. I like males!   Mantra, the f-word is sometimes the ONLY way to express your absolute annoyance in these situations.  I know who I am.

Hahaha.  Are you sure of that neferti?   ;)  ;D

I'm still wondering about easel......there's a puzzle to be solved here.

oceanz wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

I too believe gays for the large part choose they're life...to say they dont means we would then have to question why it is society condemns pedophiles so violently?..for they say too that they prefer children..its their choice. They would never admit, like a gay , that they prefer to defile children ..they mostly say its part of who they are. The eagle/Downs syndrome thing i dont get. Would you be so willing to excuse  a pedophile the same way muso.? They say they are born that way too? They are expected not to act on their impulses tho' arent they?

Absolutely. Pedophilia is totally different because it's predatory and unacceptable to society. They exploit children, and their relationships are destructive and unbalanced due to the immaturity of their victims.

The only point I disagree with is that they should be executed. The point is - do we execute both the pedophile and 'his' victim at the same time? (Don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind) - After all the victim is very likely to turn into a pedophile in later life. It's a self perpetuating cycle of evil.  Do we need to get rid of the victims and break the cycle? (the answer is obvious to any reasonable person)

Most pedophiles were probably not born that way. Even if a pedophile was born that way, we need to address the unacceptable behaviour - not the person. Chemical castration may be an option. Now there we get into dangerous grounds.

The difference with homosexuals is that it's between consenting adults. There is risk associated with homosexual sex of course, but the individuals are willing to accept that risk, and who are we to judge? There is also risk of unacceptable consequences with straight sex. As long as they understand and accept the risks, then I don't see the problem.

My point with the predatory birds is that they are what they are. They are not evil - they just act according to their instincts. A Downs Syndrome person exists. Deal with the reality. Some of them lead fulfilling lives. You have to work with what you've got.

In the same way, pedophiles exist. You find them in the strangest places (Judges, doctors, teachers and in some ways they have other talents which benefit society in different ways).  The comment that they were an extremely good teacher, judge etc and the feeling of disbelief leaves many acquaintances totally confused. We need to look at other options rather than execution. Chemical castration may be an option in some cases.

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:28am:

oceanz wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm: I too believe gays for the large part choose they're life...to say they dont means we would then have to question why it is society condemns pedophiles so violently?..for they say too that they prefer children..its their choice. They would never admit, like a gay , that they prefer to defile children ..they mostly say its part of who they are. The eagle/Downs syndrome thing i dont get. Would you be so willing to excuse  a pedophile the same way muso.? They say they are born that way too? They are expected not to act on their impulses tho' arent they? Absolutely. Pedophilia is totally different because it's predatory and unacceptable to society. They exploit children, and their relationships are destructive and unbalanced due to the immaturity of their victims. The only point I disagree with is that they should be executed. The point is - do we execute both the pedophile and 'his' victim at the same time? (Don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind) - After all the victim is very likely to turn into a pedophile in later life. It's a self perpetuating cycle of evil.  Do we need to get rid of the victims and break the cycle? (the answer is obvious to any reasonable person) Most pedophiles were probably not born that way. Even if a pedophile was born that way, we need to address the unacceptable behaviour - not the person. Chemical castration may be an option. Now there we get into dangerous grounds. The difference with homosexuals is that it's between consenting adults. There is risk associated with homosexual sex of course, but the individuals are willing to accept that risk, and who are we to judge? There is also risk of unacceptable consequences with straight sex. As long as they understand and accept the risks, then I don't see the problem. My point with the predatory birds is that they are what they are. They are not evil - they just act according to their instincts. A Downs Syndrome person exists. Deal with the reality. Some of them lead fulfilling lives. You have to work with what you've got. In the same way, pedophiles exist. You find them in the strangest places (Judges, doctors, teachers and in some ways they have other talents which benefit society in different ways).  The comment that they were an extremely good teacher, judge etc and the feeling of disbelief leaves many acquaintances totally confused. We need to look at other options rather than execution. Chemical castration may be an option in some cases.

To Queer and  muso

Im talking about preferences and wether the desire for a child is inherent in their makeup..this has nothing to do with wether tha child consents or not..of course they dont.

back later

pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo.

Quote:

pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo.

I am truly surprised at that comment Oceanz.  Would you accept or condemn either of your children if they happened to reach maturity and announced they were gay?

oceanz wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:37am:

muso wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 8:28am: oceanz wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 3:12pm: I too believe gays for the large part choose they're life...to say they dont means we would then have to question why it is society condemns pedophiles so violently?..for they say too that they prefer children..its their choice. They would never admit, like a gay , that they prefer to defile children ..they mostly say its part of who they are. The eagle/Downs syndrome thing i dont get. Would you be so willing to excuse  a pedophile the same way muso.? They say they are born that way too? They are expected not to act on their impulses tho' arent they? Absolutely. Pedophilia is totally different because it's predatory and unacceptable to society. They exploit children, and their relationships are destructive and unbalanced due to the immaturity of their victims. The only point I disagree with is that they should be executed. The point is - do we execute both the pedophile and 'his' victim at the same time? (Don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind) - After all the victim is very likely to turn into a pedophile in later life. It's a self perpetuating cycle of evil.  Do we need to get rid of the victims and break the cycle? (the answer is obvious to any reasonable person) Most pedophiles were probably not born that way. Even if a pedophile was born that way, we need to address the unacceptable behaviour - not the person. Chemical castration may be an option. Now there we get into dangerous grounds. The difference with homosexuals is that it's between consenting adults. There is risk associated with homosexual sex of course, but the individuals are willing to accept that risk, and who are we to judge? There is also risk of unacceptable consequences with straight sex. As long as they understand and accept the risks, then I don't see the problem. My point with the predatory birds is that they are what they are. They are not evil - they just act according to their instincts. A Downs Syndrome person exists. Deal with the reality. Some of them lead fulfilling lives. You have to work with what you've got. In the same way, pedophiles exist. You find them in the strangest places (Judges, doctors, teachers and in some ways they have other talents which benefit society in different ways).  The comment that they were an extremely good teacher, judge etc and the feeling of disbelief leaves many acquaintances totally confused. We need to look at other options rather than execution. Chemical castration may be an option in some cases. To Queer and  muso Im talking about preferences and wether the desire for a child is inherent in their makeup..this has nothing to do with wether tha child consents or not..of course they dont. back later pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo.

Well that just demonstrates your lack of understanding on the matter. It also demonstrates your biased intolerance which is hindering you from seeing the truth.

mantra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Quote: pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo. I am truly surprised at that comment Oceanz.  Would you accept or condemn either of your children if they happened to reach maturity and announced they were gay?

I'm very surprised by the remark too, given that your position on other matters is very similar to mine.  I think that if you had children who turned out to be gay, you would have a different opinion.

muso wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 10:05am:

mantra wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 8:44am: Quote: pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo. I am truly surprised at that comment Oceanz.  Would you accept or condemn either of your children if they happened to reach maturity and announced they were gay? I'm very surprised by the remark too, given that your position on other matters is very similar to mine.  I think that if you had children who turned out to be gay, you would have a different opinion.

Yes, this is surely a view of ignorance in its entirety!

mantra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 8:44am:

Quote: pedos and homos...not much divides theyre mentality imo. I am truly surprised at that comment Oceanz.  Would you accept or condemn either of your children if they happened to reach maturity and announced they were gay?

Of course your completely correct again..what was i thinking?

It is a very sad story Oceanz and one that would affect anyone in the same position.  Being molested of course would have affected your brother, made him depressed and perhaps as a result of this assault he became a homosexual - but how would you feel if he was also likened to a pedophile?  

It is too harsh a judgement call to make about anyone who is gay.  Pedophiles don't care whether their victim is a little boy or girl - as long as it is a child who is defenceless.

PS.  You deleted your post.  No I'm not always right - just giving my thoughts on the subject.

mantra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 4:11pm:

It is a very sad story Oceanz and one that would affect anyone in the same position.  Being molested of course would have affected your brother, made him depressed and perhaps as a result of this assault he became a homosexual - but how would you feel if he was also likened to a pedophile?   It is too harsh a judgement call to make about anyone who is gay.  Pedophiles don't care whether their victim is a little boy or girl - as long as it is a child who is defenceless. PS.  You deleted your post.  No I'm not always right - just giving my thoughts on the subject.

I dont care if its harsh mantra..its the  way I feel.

And as for victims being boys or girls..well thats true. These 2 men were homosexual and pedophiliac..I  know because they were part of my own family ( cousins )..they were kept as a dirty dark secret..but in doing so they were allowed to wreak havoc .

As for queer hanging off your apron strings..thats fine..but I think hes having a lend here and I think he's a dickhead..fullstop..

Maybe Ill become bi...seems you only have to say it to be one.

you and queer deliberately misrepresent my words..but thats ok..


I dont care.

Quote:

I dont care if its harsh mantra..its the  way I feel. And as for victims being boys or girls..well thats true. These 2 men were homosexual and pedophiliac..I  know because they were part of my own family ( cousins )..they were kept as a dirty dark secret..but in doing so they were allowed to wreak havoc . As for queer hanging off your apron strings..thats fine..but I think hes having a lend here and I think he's a dickhead..fullstop.. Maybe Ill become bi...seems you only have to say it to be one. you and queer deliberately misrepresent my words..but thats ok.. I dont care.

Oceans those last few comments are untrue.  No matter who it is - whether it's been sprintcyclist, yourself and many others over the last couple of years - at times when people have been cruel - I have always jumped to the defence of those being harrassed.  You have a short memory.  

You and a couple of others have been downright nasty to Queer and his only fault was being too honest.  

He has said nothing that I find objectionable - but it's difficult for me to remain detached when I see people being tormented.  Yes I should butt out and just let the hyenas zoom in for the feast - but I'm too set in my ways now to change.

mantra wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 5:17pm:

Quote: I dont care if its harsh mantra..its the  way I feel. And as for victims being boys or girls..well thats true. These 2 men were homosexual and pedophiliac..I  know because they were part of my own family ( cousins )..they were kept as a dirty dark secret..but in doing so they were allowed to wreak havoc . As for queer hanging off your apron strings..thats fine..but I think hes having a lend here and I think he's a dickhead..fullstop.. Maybe Ill become bi...seems you only have to say it to be one. you and queer deliberately misrepresent my words..but thats ok.. I dont care. Oceans those last few comments are untrue WHICH ONES?.  No matter who it is - whether it's been sprintcyclist, yourself and many others over the last couple of years - at times when people have been cruel - I have always jumped to the defence of those being harrassedHE DOESNT NEED DEFENDING..HE CAME IN HERE AND KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING..HE CALLED HIMSELF "QUEER" DIDNT HE?.  You have a short memory.  NO I DONT..I KNOW FULL WELL WHO DEFENDS WHO..AS I HAVE GONE IN TO BAT FOR YOU MANY TIMES AS WELL.. You and a couple of others have been downright nasty to Queer and his only fault was being too honest. THE REASON I DELETED MY LAST POST- TOO MUCH INFO..."HONESTY"..IF THATS WHAT HE WAS ACTUALLY DOING -CAN ONLY BE TAKEN SO FAR ON A PUBLIC FORUM...CERTAIN TOPICS EVOKE A RANGE OF EMOTIONS FROM A RANGE OF PPLE..QUEER IS NOT A "VICTIM" MANTRA- I DELETED MY LAST POST BECAUSE I KNEW I WOULD BE JUDGED BY THAT..WHY DOESNT "QUEER" GET THAT AS WELL?WE CANNOT JUST COME ONTO A FORUM EXPECTING EVERYONE TO AGREE..THATS NOT THE WAY IT IS..IF I SUDDENLY ANNOUNCED I WAS GAY/BI/ QUEER/TRI OR WHATEVER AND DISCUSSED MY SEXUAL PREFERENCES IE: WHO I CARE TO HAVE STROKE MY BITS..I WOULD EXPECT TO BE GIVEN A GOOD SERVE..ITS NOT A MYSTERY MANTRA..  He has said nothing that I find objectionableAPPARENTLY HE HAS OFFENEDED A FEW OF US BIGOTS..SO THATS OBJECTIONABLE - but it's difficult for me to remain detached when I see people being tormentedYes I should butt out and just let the hyenas zoom in for the feastiM NOT A HYENA ILL HAVE YOU KNOW..HOW MANY HYENAS DO YOU KNOW WHO ACTUALLY LIKE AND EAT ICECREAM  ;)?? - but I'm too set in my ways now to change.BUTT OUT? WHY..ITS JUST GETTING INTERESTING MANTRA

im done with this topic anyway..we wont agree on anything thats for sure.

I'm not sure that it's correct to say that pedophiles don't mind whether it's a boy or a girl. From news reports, it seems that they are exclusively inclined one way or the other. Ferguson for example always attacked girls.

Still, it's irrelevent anyway and a subject that I personally find distasteful. I regard them as very sick individuals who need help. Some of them even express disgust and remorse, but continue to offend. They obviously can't seem to help themselves.

Oceanz - you obviously have had some personal experience of these matters. I can understand how you feel. I'll withdraw my earlier contribution to the "Let's gang up on oceanz" alliance.

easel wrote on Oct 5^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

mantra wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 7:01am: Quote: Where's a good place to meet other lesbians? Like are there any places/hobbies which are undisclosed which are known lesbianish activities? Apart from feminist clubs. Golly easel - what a question!!  I, for one, have no idea.  When I was younger though I was approached by a couple, but only through the workplace and didn't feel inclined to take up their offers.   You could ask Sappho, Oceans, Bliss or Neferti - I think they're the only other females on this forum and maybe they could steer you in the right direction.   Why would you want to know?  I thought you were a boy. oceanz wrote on Oct 5th, 2008 at 9:26am: Yes Im confused to easel..I thought you said you were a guy too... you even ouitlined a gay encounter with another guy etc:-/ When I was 17 I was playing around with this girl who was very pretty in a tomboyish way, she was like 23. Turns out she was a lesbian and thought I was one too, which is actually kind of concerning. I didn't know she was a lesbian. Either way, I've never met a girl who was that gentle before, and I need to find more lesbians. I can't go join Curves (the gym) although I'm sure that would be a great place to find some. Also, queer, male bisexuality is just horny guys. Only women can be truly bisexual. According to these scientists you refer to.

Only women can truly be bisexual? So you're a sexist too!?!?!

Quote:

.Oceanz - you obviously have had some personal experience of these matters. I can understand how you feel. I'll withdraw my earlier contribution to the "Let's gang up on oceanz" alliance.

thank you muso.. you have a sensitive/kind spirit.

Queer, according to the studies that you refer to which support homosexuality, only women can be truly bisexual, not men.

Quote:

You could ask Sappho, Oceans, Bliss or Neferti - I think they're the only other females on this forum and maybe they could steer you in the right direction.

for the record-I also prefer men.

oceanz wrote on Oct 6^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

mantra wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 4:11pm: It is a very sad story Oceanz and one that would affect anyone in the same position.  Being molested of course would have affected your brother, made him depressed and perhaps as a result of this assault he became a homosexual - but how would you feel if he was also likened to a pedophile?   It is too harsh a judgement call to make about anyone who is gay.  Pedophiles don't care whether their victim is a little boy or girl - as long as it is a child who is defenceless. PS.  You deleted your post.  No I'm not always right - just giving my thoughts on the subject. I dont care if its harsh mantra..its the  way I feel. And as for victims being boys or girls..well thats true. These 2 men were homosexual and pedophiliac..I  know because they were part of my own family ( cousins )..they were kept as a dirty dark secret..but in doing so they were allowed to wreak havoc . As for queer hanging off your apron strings..thats fine..but I think hes having a lend here and I think he's a dickhead..fullstop.. Maybe Ill become bi...seems you only have to say it to be one. you and queer deliberately misrepresent my words..but thats ok.. I dont care.

A lend? A dickhead? You're one of the most intolerant bigoted fools I've ever met online, I hope your proud of being a horrible person!
I've done nothing but be honest about myself, unlike most people on forums who lie constantly, and if honesty offends you then thats your problem that you need to deal with. I'd hate to see you in a real life situation involving a friend of yours telling everyone he was bi/gay, you'd start a witch hunt on him.
Honesty is its best defense and lies are only for fools.

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 7:37am:

oceanz wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 4:59pm: mantra wrote on Oct 6th, 2008 at 4:11pm: It is a very sad story Oceanz and one that would affect anyone in the same position.  Being molested of course would have affected your brother, made him depressed and perhaps as a result of this assault he became a homosexual - but how would you feel if he was also likened to a pedophile?   It is too harsh a judgement call to make about anyone who is gay.  Pedophiles don't care whether their victim is a little boy or girl - as long as it is a child who is defenceless. PS.  You deleted your post.  No I'm not always right - just giving my thoughts on the subject. I dont care if its harsh mantra..its the  way I feel. And as for victims being boys or girls..well thats true. These 2 men were homosexual and pedophiliac..I  know because they were part of my own family ( cousins )..they were kept as a dirty dark secret..but in doing so they were allowed to wreak havoc . As for queer hanging off your apron strings..thats fine..but I think hes having a lend here and I think he's a dickhead..fullstop.. Maybe Ill become bi...seems you only have to say it to be one. you and queer deliberately misrepresent my words..but thats ok.. I dont care. A lend? A dickhead? You're one of the most intolerant bigoted fools I've ever met online, I hope your proud of being a horrible person!

have a nice day queer...

you got a cute way of walking ill bet = ]

want me to wipe your lil nose for you? My apron is still dry.


http://www.wackypackages.org/John_Mann_Website/wackyads/pictures/boohoo.jpg

If I and the GLBT community cause you so much pain and anguish why do you keep coming back to post? Could it be because you are a closet lesbian? or maybe its just because you're a bigot and like to try and cause trouble for people you don't even know!

Either way IDGAF, so just stay away from this thread if you don't like it, thats a no brainer.

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 7:56am:

If I and the GLBT community cause you so much pain and anguish why do you keep coming back to post? Could it be because you are a closet lesbian? or maybe its just because you're a bigot and like to try and cause trouble for people you don't even know! Either way IDGAF, so just stay away from this thread if you don't like it, thats a no brainer.

what no "proleterariat "or" boorrjjwaasssiiiee" crap?

You and the gay and lesbos can kiss my a rse queer...you are just pathetic.



Now stop being a gay arse BIGOT and go to work please.

I started this thread..

oceanz wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:01am:

queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 7:56am: If I and the GLBT community cause you so much pain and anguish why do you keep coming back to post? Could it be because you are a closet lesbian? or maybe its just because you're a bigot and like to try and cause trouble for people you don't even know! Either way IDGAF, so just stay away from this thread if you don't like it, thats a no brainer. what no proleterariat or boorrjjwaasssiiiee crap? You and the gay and lesbos can kiss my a rse queer...you are just pathetic. Now stop being a gay arse BIGOT and go to work please.

Kiss your ass? why in hell would I want to do that, I might catch that sickening disease you got!
You're the one being pathetic and embarrassing yourself sweat heart!

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:04am:

oceanz wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:01am: queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 7:56am: If I and the GLBT community cause you so much pain and anguish why do you keep coming back to post? Could it be because you are a closet lesbian? or maybe its just because you're a bigot and like to try and cause trouble for people you don't even know! Either way IDGAF, so just stay away from this thread if you don't like it, thats a no brainer. what no proleterariat or boorrjjwaasssiiiee crap? You and the gay and lesbos can kiss my a rse queer...you are just pathetic. Now stop being a gay arse BIGOT and go to work please. Kiss your ass? why in hell would I want to do that, I might catch that sickening disease you got!

one more reason you should go to work then? ha ha

oceanz wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:05am:

queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:04am: oceanz wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:01am: queer wrote on Oct 8th, 2008 at 7:56am: If I and the GLBT community cause you so much pain and anguish why do you keep coming back to post? Could it be because you are a closet lesbian? or maybe its just because you're a bigot and like to try and cause trouble for people you don't even know! Either way IDGAF, so just stay away from this thread if you don't like it, thats a no brainer. what no proleterariat or boorrjjwaasssiiiee crap? You and the gay and lesbos can kiss my a rse queer...you are just pathetic. Now stop being a gay arse BIGOT and go to work please. Kiss your ass? why in hell would I want to do that, I might catch that sickening disease you got! one more reason you should go to work then? ha ha

Why is my job so interesting to you? scared I have a higher paying one than you?

http://www.wackypackages.org/John_Mann_Website/wackyads/pictures/boohoo.jpg

Good to see you're stocked up with that sh!t!

queer wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 8:10am:

Good to see you're stocked up with that sh!t!

http://kendavenport.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2008/05/13/images.jpg

a preemptive one coz Im bored with you already  -- boo hoo.


http://www.wackypackages.org/John_Mann_Website/wackyads/pictures/boohoo.jpg

UR A n00b!

Anyway, back on topic, queer, do you believe that a child with 2 mothers (or 2 fathers) does not miss out in any way, shape or form? Even if they had the idealistic, loving parents in a loving relationship with no problems or anything else. I don't want to know if you think they are "better off" than a lot of children in situations with heterosexual parents have divorced or are abusive, I want to know if gay parents think the child misses out in some way by not having a parent of both sexes in their life.

jordan484 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 9:48am:

Anyway, back on topic, queer, do you believe that a child with 2 mothers (or 2 fathers) does not miss out in any way, shape or form? Even if they had the idealistic, loving parents in a loving relationship with no problems or anything else. I don't want to know if you think they are "better off" than a lot of children in situations with heterosexual parents have divorced or are abusive, I want to know if gay parents think the child misses out in some way by not having a parent of both sexes in their life.

No I don't think they miss out on anything.

Is that because you hope they don't, or that you have studied enough on the topic to make that call?

Its from the fact that I've seen quite a few single parents raise perfectly normal kids so if a single parent can raise a kid normally then two parents of the same sex can also raise one normally. No real long term studies have been undertaken in my opinion as homosexual child adoption is a relatively new thing and it would be best to answer this question in another 50 years or so for more concrete results. But in general, yes, I feel two gay or lesbian parents can raise a kid just as well as any single or coupled hetero's can with the same results in the child.
It has more to do with the environment and morals around the child than the sex of the parents. Just because a traditional family is M/F doesn't mean M/M or F/F can't work just as well as many traditions are being disassembled these days with good results. Subjective opinions will always get in the way of this question and I am trying to give my honest unbiased opinion on this matter through personal experience and the few test results that there are.

Quote:

Is that because you hope they don't, or that you have studied enough on the topic to make that call?

Of course children miss out on a lot when they don't have their father around.  A lot more stress is put on the mother and hopefully most of them cope - but one good parent is still better than 2 bad parents.  Two good parents are great (of any sex) - but not so common these days.

I coped - mainly alone - but my children didn't want to share me with just anyone and I put their needs first.  I do know a couple of gay women - who were once "straight" and they are raising children - but with good input from the fathers - and these children are very well adjusted and not ashamed of their mothers.

I grew up without a mother, and my boys are as well (both through death) and I know how much I missed out on, but particularly my sister, the mother daughter bond is so crucial, and I know my boys will miss out terribly not having their mother around, I try to include female relatives in their lives to give them great role models of the opposite sex, which I think is essential, in fact I know from experience that it is. I'm still of the opinion it doesn't matter if a gay couple is loving and wonderful, the child still misses out on an essential relationship with the parent of the opposite sex to the couple.

Quote:

I grew up without a mother, and my boys are as well (both through death) and I know how much I missed out on, but particularly my sister, the mother daughter bond is so crucial, and I know my boys will miss out terribly not having their mother around, I try to include female relatives in their lives to give them great role models of the opposite sex, which I think is essential, in fact I know from experience that it is. I'm still of the opinion it doesn't matter if a gay couple is loving and wonderful, the child still misses out on an essential relationship with the parent of the opposite sex to the couple.

Jordan - these situations do make us very sad - but no matter how sad we feel - to have our children grow up feeling secure,  we have to put our wants aside for a little while.  I can relate exactly to what you're saying, but in the reverse.

As long as your boys have some positive exposure to female relatives or friends occasionally - they will be fine.  They have the security of you and that is the most important thing.

Thanks mantra, those were very kind words.

Good luck with that jordan.

One of my mates lost his wife (mother of 2) a few years ago.
he had a tough time for a while, but kept going and is ok now.

take care

(yes, mantra is always like that, don't tell her though)

Thank you sprint. We are doing ok, it's been 7 years since my wife died, it does get better as the years go by but it is still very difficult at times, but the boys keep me busy (they are triplets) and very focused, they are my world and I keep going for them.

*

Quote:

but the boys keep me busy (they are triplets) and very focused, they are my world and I keep going for them.

My God Jordan - triplets.  You deserve a medal for bravery and perseverance.  I'm sure they are all gorgeous - but it must have been a nightmare when they all wanted something at once, wouldn't go to sleep or eat at the same time and fought with each other at the same time.  

I'm amazed you've come out of it all with a sense of humour.  :D  

Hahaha,

Yes, it can be a bit of a mad house, and it certainly was when they were babies.....but it's all about routine, routine, routine, it's the only way to stay sane!! As they get older it gets easier and it's all I know, I don't know what it's like to have one at a time, so it seems normal for me.

"Ellen DeGeneres 'saddened beyond belief' by gay marriage ban   November 06, 2008
ELLEN DeGeneres says she is "saddened beyond belief" a ban on gay marriage has been approved by Californian voters.

DeGeneres married Australian actress Portia de Rossi in August, three months after the Californian Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage.

Yesterday's vote for Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, leaves the stars and thousands of other gay couples in legal limbo.

"Barack Obama is our new president. Change is here. I like millions of of Americans, felt like we had taken a giant step toward equality," the talk-show host said on her website.

"This morning, when it was clear that Proposition 8 had passed in California, I can’t explain the feeling I had. I was saddened beyond belief.

"Here we just had a giant step toward equality and then on the very next day, we took a giant step away."

Proposition 8 was approved in a referendum by 52.1 per cent of voters, compared with 47.9 per cent who voted against.

Local media reported that a lesbian couple, who previously won the right to marry with the Supreme Court ruling, were to file a new suit to stop the referendum from coming into effect.

Japanese-American actor George Takei, who played Mr Sulu in the long-running series Star Trek, and who married his longtime partner Brad Altman in September, said his marriage would stay remain valid no matter what.

"There's nothing in the language of Proposition 8 that says it's retroactive, so our marriage is going to be valid," he told a local TV channel.

"But what we're concerned about is the young people of the future. Proposition 8 will eliminate in the constitution of the state their options of really being who they want to be."

Hollywood stars including Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg, as well as multinational companies such as Apple, had flocked to the "No" camp against the ban, with donations of up to $US100,000 ($142,920).

Arizona and Florida also passed similar referendums by large margins yesterday, stating that marriage was the legal union between a man and a woman.

The largest was in Florida where 62 per cent of voters approved the measure compared to 38 per cent against.

President-elect Obama has previously said he supports civil unions for same-sex couples which would give them exactly the same rights as married heterosexual couples."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24611555-12377,00.html



Saddenned beyond belief ???
I can't believe that.

Quote:

Arizona and Florida also passed similar referendums by large margins yesterday, stating that marriage was the legal union between a man and a woman.

Are these people just stupid? Why do they seem incapable of separating a semantic issue from a rights issue? Were the referendums really worded that ambiguously?

Thursday November 06, 2008 03:10AM EST

PEOPLE Top 5 are the most-viewed stories on the site over the past three days, updated every 60 minutes
People ExclusiveEllen and Portia Get Married
By Julie Jordan

Originally posted Sunday August 17, 2008 01:00 AM EDT
Portia de Rossi (left) and Ellen DeGeneres
Photo by: Lester Cohen / WireImage  

Ring the wedding bells!

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi have tied the knot.

"Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi were married tonight in an intimate ceremony at their home in Los Angeles," their spokesperson tells PEOPLE exclusively.

DeGeneres, 50, and de Rossi, 35, both wore Zac Posen and exchanged rings by Neil Lane during the Saturday ceremony. Their big day also featured arrangements by L.A. florist Mark's Garden.

The intimate ceremony was attended by 19 guests, including DeGeneres's mom Betty and de Rossi's mother Margaret Rogers (who flew in from Australia for the occasion), who witnessed the couple exchange handwritten vows.

The couple have been dating since December 2004. DeGeneres announced her plans to wed de Rossi during a taping of her talk show in May after California's Supreme Court ruled a previous ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.

The following month de Rossi showed off a 3-carat diamond ring set on a pink pavé band DeGeneres presented to her for their upcoming nuptials when the pair attended the Daytime Emmy Awards together.

"She's taught me lessons about myself, and I feel like I've taught her," the TV host said of de Rossi last year. "We've both changed and grown, and we just feel like, 'Oh, okay, this is completion.'"



http://www.chroniclejournal.com/includes/CP_stories/140/140867.jpg

oceanz wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 11:06pm:

Controversial topic but nonetheless important. Most pple agree gay pple should be allowed to marry , to experinece the same rights under the law as everyone else..As far as I know in Australia gay marriage is not reconised but I guess inevitably it will be. The question is do you agree with gay marriage and should the couple be allowed to have children in theyre care..male/male or female/female couples? Thoughts? and any reasons. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/gayparentsCORBIS_228x263.jpg http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/16/00/22970016.jpg

We know that Gay men most admire for their sexual pleasure young boys. Many available data confirms that 99% gay men wants to adopt boys. Also we know that 99% gay men became gays when they were raped by other gays at early age of their lives.
Considering all above conclude for yourself.

Do you believe everything you hear athos?

athos wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 10:03am:

oceanz wrote on Aug 23rd, 2007 at 11:06pm: Controversial topic but nonetheless important. Most pple agree gay pple should be allowed to marry , to experinece the same rights under the law as everyone else..As far as I know in Australia gay marriage is not reconised but I guess inevitably it will be. The question is do you agree with gay marriage and should the couple be allowed to have children in theyre care..male/male or female/female couples? Thoughts? and any reasons. http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01/gayparentsCORBIS_228x263.jpg http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/16/00/22970016.jpg We know that Gay men most admire for their sexual pleasure young boys. Many available data confirms that 99% gay men wants to adopt boys. Also we know that 99% gay men became gays when they were raped by other gays at early age of their lives. Considering all above conclude for yourself.

Im not argueing with that at all  athos..I have raised these points myself.

Quote:

99% gay men became gays when they were raped by other gays at early age of their lives

You actually agree with that Oceans?

freediver wrote on Nov 7^th, 2008 at 2:41pm:

Quote: 99% gay men became gays when they were raped by other gays at early age of their lives You actually agree with that Oceans?

Yes.

But it would be hard to quote actual percentages of gay men who become gay due to prior abuse in childhood- but would have to be a definite determing factor if in fact they were abused and later on became or turned out to be gay.

Data is not that reliable anyway.

I know someone who this happend to and thats all I want to say .