181 replies to this topic

[chess211]

Anyways, according to the latest opinion poll on the issue, done by Gallup, a majority of the United States supports same sex marriage (53%) and it is strongly supported by the youth, so it should be within this generation that things change.

[Tetiel]

Cody, on 26 June 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

I'm actually surprised you guys are still entertaining this troll.

D) If you agree that the misconception of AIDS has been proven incorrect and those misconceptions have been moved outside of the mainstream, then why do you still advocate against homosexuality, knowing that there is no negative health associations?

Because I can and I find it kind of fun. I'm an odd one I will say something about D, though. It's interesting that the red cross still will not allow anyone who has had sexual intercourse with a gay male since (1974 or 1978? Sorry, that's just what I remember from the last time I gave blood) donate blood. Is that a negative health association?

[WharfRat]

Tetiel, on 26 June 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

Because I can and I find it kind of fun. I'm an odd one I will say something about D, though. It's interesting that the red cross still will not allow anyone who has had sexual intercourse with a gay male since (1974 or 1978? Sorry, that's just what I remember from the last time I gave blood) donate blood. Is that a negative health association?

I think it is more to do with the people that the red cross initially set forth to serve, the armed forces. The U.S. military is incredibly traditional and holds on to long standing opinions and takes a long time to change views... Just my opinion, but I've yet to find any legitimate studies showing an actual health correlation to being gay.

Even if being gay was bad for your health, I still don't see what the fuck that has to do with allowing them to marry each other...

[Donaldmax]

Tetiel, on 26 June 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

No, it's your logic. Not all of American society feels this way. If they did, no state would allow gay marriage. With proper education, people learned that AIDS is not a "gay" disease. You'd be hard pressed to find people that still think that way. Why should we punish people for misconceptions that haven't really been wide spread for about 20 years?

I did a research paper on gay/lesbian people in the 1980s.
It was commonly believed that aids was a gay disease until it was proven wrong. Not everyone believed it. Of course not every single person believed it. When I say society, I mean a majority of the people felt that there was something wrong with gay people until it was proven wrong with proof. There are some documentaries on this particular subject, I hope you can actually see them. And I'm not punishing people for misconceptions.
Society is changing to acept gays and lesbians. My opinion is that I think marriage is seriously too extreme. People commonly believe that marriage signifies a settlement. You get benefits and you are officially "married". Quite commonly, people believe marriage to be the next step of life. A time where you would raise children.
Of course many people raise children without being married. And nothing could stop them.
Society has many views of Marriage. And also. I said that marriage USUALLY LEADS TO CHILDREN. For the fucking 500th time.
I'm not the only who views the world this way.
http://spectator.org...-equality-is-b#
And cody. To repeat myself. I don't even use Abrosia. I don't see any reason to reach 500 posts. If I wanted to reach 500, I would post like a motha like frostz.

[Tetiel]

Cody, on 26 June 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

I think it is more to do with the people that the red cross initially set forth to serve, the armed forces. The U.S. military is incredibly traditional and holds on to long standing opinions and takes a long time to change views... Just my opinion, but I've yet to find any legitimate studies showing an actual health correlation to being gay.

Even if being gay was bad for your health, I still don't see what the fuck that has to do with allowing them to marry each other...

Well absolutely nothing or else they would ban people with STIs from marriage. The army is good point, I had actually never thought of it that way since it's other uses are so widespread.

[WharfRat]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I did a research paper on gay/lesbian people in the 1980s.
It was commonly believed that aids was a gay disease until it was proven wrong. Not everyone believed it. Of course not every single person believed it. When I say society, I mean a majority of the people felt that there was something wrong with gay people until it was proven wrong with proof. There are some documentaries on this particular subject, I hope you can actually see them. And I'm not punishing people for misconceptions.
Society is changing to acept gays and lesbians. My opinion is that I think marriage is seriously too extreme. People commonly believe that marriage signifies a settlement. You get benefits and you are officially "married". Quite commonly, people believe marriage to be the next step of life. A time where you would raise children.
Of course many people raise children without being married. And nothing could stop them.
Society has many views of Marriage. And also. I said that marriage USUALLY LEADS TO CHILDREN. For the fucking 500th time.
I'm not the only who views the world this way.
http://spectator.org...-equality-is-b#

And cody. To repeat myself. I don't even use Abrosia. I don't see any reason to reach 500 posts. If I wanted to reach 500, I would post like a motha like frostz.

I think it's very funny that out of the entire post that I made disproving your claims, the only thing you could reply back to was the claim that you are pushing to 500 posts. I think that statement alone speaks volumes as to the quality of your argument.

P.s. Marriage doesn't lead to children. Sex leads to children. Oops. Sorry if I just spoiled your 8th grade Anatomy lesson for you! At least now you'll be ahead of the curve when you get there!

[punkrockbigmouth]

oreo12, on 26 June 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

I just threw up from being sick, and now I think i'm going to go throw up again. Thank god i'm leaving NY. -____-

I'm with you, YUCK! Equal rights is so nauseating.

[chess211]

A recent study, http://muse.jhu.edu/....rosenfeld.html, if you can read it. If not there is a summery located here, http://www.futurity....chool-success/.

Basically, the point it that accounting for other factors such as wealth and education level of parents, there is no statistical difference between the academic performance of a child raised by a heterosexual couple, and a child raised by a homosexual couple. Both groups perform better then children from a single parents household, and all perform significantly better than a group living home. So in the interest of benefitting children, at least academically it is in their best interests to be adopted by a couple, either homosexual or heterosexual, it does not make a difference, compared to any other living situation.

[Tetiel]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

I did a research paper on gay/lesbian people in the 1980s.
It was commonly believed that aids was a gay disease until it was proven wrong. Not everyone believed it. Of course not every single person believed it. When I say society, I mean a majority of the people felt that there was something wrong with gay people until it was proven wrong with proof. There are some documentaries on this particular subject, I hope you can actually see them. And I'm not punishing people for misconceptions.
Society is changing to acept gays and lesbians. My opinion is that I think marriage is seriously too extreme. People commonly believe that marriage signifies a settlement. You get benefits and you are officially "married". Quite commonly, people believe marriage to be the next step of life. A time where you would raise children.
Of course many people raise children without being married. And nothing could stop them.
Society has many views of Marriage. And also. I said that marriage USUALLY LEADS TO CHILDREN. For the fucking 500th time.
I'm not the only who views the world this way.
http://spectator.org...-equality-is-b#
And cody. To repeat myself. I don't even use Abrosia. I don't see any reason to reach 500 posts. If I wanted to reach 500, I would post like a motha like frostz.

The key word is "felt" so why is it your main argument for now? Benefits are good. It allows them to have hospital visitation rights if their partner is not able to be conscious enough to give permission. It allows them to file their taxes together. Why would this really effect anyone but the people within that partnership?

You're still not addressing why, if it will be more accepted, would it cause bullying? Also, that article is extremely biased. I have no doubt that there are a lot of problems with the modern family, but it doesn't have anything to do with gays. My father is on his local truancy board and sees it all the time. There is almost never a father that shows up for these things. About half the time, the child has no relationship with the father. Why would this mean that children don't just need a partnership between their parents which two mothers or two fathers could provide? Children need a stable environment. As the article states, they can live and be find without it, but the odds are against them. It's so difficult for just one parent to provide and give proper care for a child. I see it all the time as I work in childcare and I have seen terrible environments for children. I just can't see why it's better for a child to have no parents than for them to have two loving, homosexual parents.

[Ladida]

I'm an atheist, I'm straight, and I don't want kids. No one is allowed to tell me whether I can get married or not. Religious institutions wouldn't recognize the marriage since it'd only by a civil one, but they're not allowed to get in my face telling me I can't get married. No one is allowed to tell me I can't get married if I don't want kids (although I've heard this one a lot.. "You don't want kids? I guess you're never getting married then!"). Since I'm an atheist, marriage means only cashing in on legal benefits given to married people. Also, "marriage" somehow gets more respect from people, as if "being in a relationship" is something frivolous, and not to be taken seriously. "I'm in a long-term relationship" elicits the response "Oh, he's just keeping you for the free milk!". "Marriage" gets "Congratulations! Welcome to the club! You're all grown up! WEEEEEE!!!". I don't understand the mentality behind this. Suggesting that the love between a gay couple is somehow lower than the love between a straight couple just doesn't make any sense. Love is an emotion, felt by all humans, straight or gay. Most of the responses I've heard about gay people not being allowed to marry stem from some religious teaching where it HAS to be a man and a woman so that they could make babies. Since I'm an atheist, that means nothing to me, and there's utterly no reason I can come up with to prevent gay people from marrying and enjoying the same benefits straight married people are getting for their marriage.


Gay people are not the scum of the earth (Freddie Mercuryyyyyyy!!!!). They're not all inherently pedophiles, maniacs or freaks any more more than straight people are. Suggesting that these adopted kids are going to fare a lot worse than kids being adopted by straight people seems flawed. I mean, look at the news. Kids are being raped and murdered and abused in horrific ways by their "nice, normal", straight "parents". Are people saying that kids are better off with these monsters (who are straight so that makes everything better) than with a nice gay couple? A gay couple is more traumatic than that??
Gay people are not the only humans to have STDs or STIs. If they're not allowed to adopt, then they should do screenings on all potential adopters, and reject giving kids to any parent who has an STD.
There's also this weird belief that gay people are going to try and make their kids gay. That would go against everything they're saying, that they have no choice in being gay (which I believe to be true. Who the Hell would choose to be gay when this is the response from society? Why would anyone want their kids to grow up facing this kind of discrimination?).

[Ali]

Ladida, on 26 June 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

I'm an atheist, I'm straight, and I don't want kids. No one is allowed to tell me whether I can get married or not. Religious institutions wouldn't recognize the marriage since it'd only by a civil one, but they're not allowed to get in my face telling me I can't get married. No one is allowed to tell me I can't get married if I don't want kids (although I've heard this one a lot.. "You don't want kids? I guess you're never getting married then!"). Since I'm an atheist, marriage means only cashing in on legal benefits given to married people. Also, "marriage" somehow gets more respect from people, as if "being in a relationship" is something frivolous, and not to be taken seriously. "I'm in a long-term relationship" elicits the response "Oh, he's just keeping you for the free milk!". "Marriage" gets "Congratulations! Welcome to the club! You're all grown up! WEEEEEE!!!". I don't understand the mentality behind this. Suggesting that the love between a gay couple is somehow lower than the love between a straight couple just doesn't make any sense. Love is an emotion, felt by all humans, straight or gay. Most of the responses I've heard about gay people not being allowed to marry stem from some religious teaching where it HAS to be a man and a woman so that they could make babies. Since I'm an atheist, that means nothing to me, and there's utterly no reason I can come up with to prevent gay people from marrying and enjoying the same benefits straight married people are getting for their marriage.


Gay people are not the scum of the earth (Freddie Mercuryyyyyyy!!!!). They're not all inherently pedophiles, maniacs or freaks any more more than straight people are. Suggesting that these adopted kids are going to fare a lot worse than kids being adopted by straight people seems flawed. I mean, look at the news. Kids are being raped and murdered and abused in horrific ways by their "nice, normal", straight "parents". Are people saying that kids are better off with these monsters (who are straight so that makes everything better) than with a nice gay couple? A gay couple is more traumatic than that??
Gay people are not the only humans to have STDs or STIs. If they're not allowed to adopt, then they should do screenings on all potential adopters, and reject giving kids to any parent who has an STD.
There's also this weird belief that gay people are going to try and make their kids gay. That would go against everything they're saying, that they have no choice in being gay (which I believe to be true. Who the Hell would choose to be gay when this is the response from society? Why would anyone want their kids to grow up facing this kind of discrimination?).

I like you. And I so rarely like newer members. We should probably organise some sort of prize for you.

I believe there have been studies that show some correlation suggesting "OMGZ, GAY PARENTS MAKE GAY KIDZ!!!!" but it's mostly been theorised this is due to a more open and tolerant environment, prompting the child to be more comfortable with exploring its sexuality rather than any sort of causation.

Plus of course, the sample for any study into gay parenting is fairly limited still. Far fewer gay and lesbian parents out there that are willing to participate compared to the "traditional" family so difficult to say how conclusive these things can be.


I have gay friends who would love children one day. I am straight and happily married with no desire for children. I know full well that my gay friends would make far better parents than I EVER will, regardless of the sexuality of anyone involved.

[punkrockbigmouth]

Ali, on 26 June 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I like you. And I so rarely like newer members. We should probably organise some sort of prize for you.

In honor of Ladida's fine achievement, behold! A prize ribbon.

[Donaldmax]

Way too much typing to continue defend my opinion. I realized it's not worth to continue a controversial topic like this. There's always opposition and no matter what you do, you can't win. Nobody does.

[punkrockbigmouth]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

Way too much typing to continue defend my opinion. I realized it's not worth to continue a controversial topic like this. There's always opposition and no matter what you do, you can't win. Nobody does.

The gays of New York have finally won. That's really all that matters.

[Ali]

punkrockbigmouth, on 26 June 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

In honor of Ladida's fine achievement, behold! A prize ribbon.

Excellent, there you go Ladida, treasure that. PRBM, you are now prize maker in chief, congratulations.

punkrockbigmouth, on 26 June 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

The gays of New York have finally won. That's really all that matters.

And how wonderful for them it is. Hurrah NY!

[Donaldmax]

The chances of gay marriage in all 50 states is like the chances of you winning the lottery.

[Ladida]

Ali, on 26 June 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I like you. And I so rarely like newer members. We should probably organise some sort of prize for you.

punkrockbigmouth, on 26 June 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

In honor of Ladida's fine achievement, behold! A prize ribbon.

Ali, on 26 June 2011 - 11:36 AM, said:

Excellent, there you go Ladida, treasure that. PRBM, you are now prize maker in chief, congratulations.

*tucks award safely into folder* I'm.. I'm so touched and honored *sniffles* I'll never forget this moment *HUG!* Thank you

[chess211]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

The chances of gay marriage in all 50 states is like the chances of you winning the lottery.

It is more a matter of time than anything else. The current challenge against Proposition 8 in California could make it happen relatively soon, as currently the ruling that is being appealed is that banning gay marriage is against the federal constitution, so if this decision is the one to hold out, then gay marriage will make it to all 50 states as soon as the lawsuits can be decided. It will still take time, because it will be some time before the current round of challenges are decided by the courts.

[Narcissa]

Dear DonaldMax,

Fuck you with a rusty spork in your eye. No, really. How DARE you even suggest that if my gf and I wanted to have a child, it would automatically be fucking depressed. We would be a fuck ton better then some of these people out there that I see who are breeding incessantly and giving no hope or future for their children. Heaven forbid that we would actually have to THINK about raising a child before spawning one. My friend from high school had a child when she was 18 for fucks sake who is now going through very heavy psychological treatment because he was beaten and abused by his father. They were not even close to being ready to have children. And yet you say that my girlfriend and I, who do not want for anything, are going to school (and will graduate/already have degrees) and will probably be well off for the rest of our lives would be detrimental to our child's health?

Where the hell are you getting your statistics about these children being depressed? Many reports have done research as to how well these kids are doing academically, socially, and actively; even more so then their straight-parent counterparts. Like I don't know, here, here, here, AND OMG ANOTHER ONE HERE. And look! They're legit resources (unlike YOUR fucking alien post, might I add) Actually, time and time again the issues that come up with these kids is that they're saddened, not because they're known to be the child of a gay couple, but rather that they're not viewed as a family by the government and that people are so narrowminded. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, that these kids and parents don't like the fact that straight-minded life is being shoved down their throats in school and yet they can't say shit about their own family?

Shut the fuck up dude, you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and are a troll to boot.

[Donaldmax]

Narcissa, on 26 June 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

Dear DonaldMax,

Fuck you with a rusty spork in your eye. No, really. How DARE you even suggest that if my gf and I wanted to have a child, it would automatically be fucking depressed. We would be a fuck ton better then some of these people out there that I see who are breeding incessantly and giving no hope or future for their children. Heaven forbid that we would actually have to THINK about raising a child before spawning one. My friend from high school had a child when she was 18 for fucks sake who is now going through very heavy psychological treatment because he was beaten and abused by his father. They were not even close to being ready to have children. And yet you say that my girlfriend and I, who do not want for anything, are going to school (and will graduate/already have degrees) and will probably be well off for the rest of our lives would be detrimental to our child's health?

Where the hell are you getting your statistics about these children being depressed? Many reports have done research as to how well these kids are doing academically, socially, and actively; even more so then their straight-parent counterparts. Like I don't know, here, here, here, AND OMG ANOTHER ONE HERE. And look! They're legit resources (unlike YOUR fucking alien post, might I add) Actually, time and time again the issues that come up with these kids is that they're saddened, not because they're known to be the child of a gay couple, but rather that they're not viewed as a family by the government and that people are so narrowminded. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, that these kids and parents don't like the fact that straight-minded life is being shoved down their throats in school and yet they can't say shit about their own family?

Shut the fuck up dude, you clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and are a troll to boot.

Ok Go raise a child with your gf. Call me when your child is twenty. and also tell me how he is doing in high school. And the alien post had nothing to do with this. All I said was: Do you think this is real or not. I didn't even say anything else. Oh. Also that site i posted in this thread. All I said was, at least this website agrees with me. I never used it as a source or anything. Only for my personal resource. GL IN LIFE, because I don't give a fuck about you.

[Donaldmax]

I have nothing against lesbians or gays. I am just against gay/lesbian marriage because marriage usually leads to a family. And I just think that children should not have their life miserable because of their parents. And Narcrissa is a perfect example of what I'm trying to convey, except she doesn't know the consequences. She just thinks, oh cool, family, children, rights, yay! She thinks that she can raise the child perfectly and nothing would happen. Her child would be completely normal and won't be laughed at by certain bullies. Yeah, in your dreams.

Edited by donaldmax, 26 June 2011 - 01:18 PM.

[Tetiel]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

I have nothing against lesbians or gays. I am just against gay/lesbian marriage because marriage usually leads to a family. And I just think that children should not have their life miserable because of their parents. And Narcrissa is a perfect example of what I'm trying to convey, except she doesn't know the consequences. She just thinks, oh cool, family, children, rights, yay! She thinks that she can raise the child perfectly and nothing would happen. Her child would be completely normal and won't be laughed at by certain bullies. Yeah, in your dreams.

And some kids get made fun of because they're really hairy. Should hairy people not be allowed to have babies?

[Narcissa]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

I have nothing against lesbians or gays. I am just against gay/lesbian marriage because marriage usually leads to a family. And I just think that children should not have their life miserable because of their parents. And Narcrissa is a perfect example of what I'm trying to convey, except she doesn't know the consequences. She just thinks, oh cool, family, children, rights, yay! She thinks that she can raise the child perfectly and nothing would happen. Her child would be completely normal and won't be laughed at by certain bullies. Yeah, in your dreams.

I never stated that I wanted kids? Just that those whom have the desire to should be able to.

People are going to keep having kids whether or not gay marriage is allowed. The only worrisome figure is if living in a gay house is detrimental or not; if you had actually read the fucking articles I linked you'd have seen that more and more research is pointing to the fact that gay households don't have any more negative or positive outcomes then their straight house hold counterparts.

The two kids I know that were raised by a gay couple are in their 20s now. One is an accredited chef, the other is finishing up her degree at Harvard. I can easily say that they're doing significantly better then the en masse group from my school that have kids/no careers/are stoners.

And if you think that being miserable only applies to gay couples you're a fucking moron. How about that kid I mentioned? He's already fucked up and is 5. Hasn't even started school yet. Parents make their kids miserable in many forms as nobody is entirely happy with their parents; it just depends on the severity of it.

You have no research to back you up here. You're being ignorant, plain and simple.

Edited by Narcissa, 26 June 2011 - 01:26 PM.

[Donaldmax]

Tetiel, on 26 June 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

And some kids get made fun of because they're really hairy. Should hairy people not be allowed to have babies?

Uhm. This isn't a genetics thread. Just because the parents are hairy, doesn't mean the child is going to be hairy. I don't really see hairy children get laughed at because they could always shave.

Narcissa, on 26 June 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

I never stated that I wanted kids? Just that those whom have the desire to should be able to.

People are going to keep having kids whether or not gay marriage is allowed. The only worrisome figure is if living in a gay house is detrimental or not; if you had actually read the fucking articles I linked you'd have seen that more and more research is pointing to the fact that gay households don't have any more negative or positive outcomes then their straight house hold counterparts.

The two kids I know that were raised by a gay couple are in their 20s now. One is an accredited chef, the other is finishing up her degree at Harvard. I can easily say that they're doing significantly better then the en masse group from my school that have kids/no careers/are stoners.

You have no research to back you up here. You're being ignorant, plain and simple.

Define "know" in your own terms.
I could say your being ignorant lol. Because you don't account for the possibilities and only believe what you believe. Everything else is wrong and stupid, according to you

[Narcissa]

donaldmax, on 26 June 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Uhm. This isn't a genetics thread. Just because the parents are hairy, doesn't mean the child is going to be hairy. I don't really see hairy children get laughed at because they could always shave.



Define "know" in your own terms.
I could say your being ignorant lol. Because you don't account for the possibilities and only believe what you believe. Everything else is wrong and stupid, according to you

It's only stupid if you've no fucking research to back up your claims; which is what the defenition for ignorance is. (sorry, one post written by a political nut job doesn't count)

I'm done here. I've nothing further to say to a moronic troll.