February 7, 200719 yr Unless it is the belief of the people that "marriage" as an institution should be man + woman. Everyone in the country can partake in marriage, gay or not, but marriage has to be the joining of man and woman. I can't see the justification of discriminating against gay people because of a word which entails discrimination. It's not like it's prohibited for a reason other than religious and social opinion which the law should be blind too. As long as it breaks no law, harms no-one else (sure it may cause offence - but thats not justification to ban it) and makes those people happy then why shouldn't it be allowed? Because a word defines it as man and woman? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr Author I agree, but is that because there is only one parent, or is it because there is a male/female figure missing? Not to stereotpye too much, but most gay men/women in long-term relationships have the whole 'femme/dominant' roles played by eachother. One is more manly, one is more feminine. I agree it could hurt a child perhaps, but most gay people adopt...What's worse - Having two same-sex parents, or no parents at all, you know? :P I disagree with the generalization that most gay couples have a feminine and masculine person. That hasn't been my experience at all. And you raise the point that I mentioned - we don't really know 100% what could cause a child starting out with a disadvantage. But to say, as you did in your initial post, that the kid can only be "messed up" because kids makes fun of him blatantly ignores a large portion of the psychiatric world who believe, and for legitimate reason, that a child is better off with both a mother and father. I can't see the justification of discriminating against gay people because of a word which entails discrimination. It's not like it's prohibited for a reason other than religious and social opinion which the law should be blind too. As long as it breaks no law, harms no-one else (sure it may cause offence - but thats not justification to ban it) and makes those people happy then why shouldn't it be allowed? Because a word defines it as man and woman? My assumption then is that you don't support any form of social programs being paid for and sponsored by the government?
February 7, 200719 yr An example of a social program being paid for and sponsered by the Government? (Just so i have this clear). With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 7, 200719 yr I agree, but is that because there is only one parent, or is it because there is a male/female figure missing? Not to stereotpye too much, but most gay men/women in long-term relationships have the whole 'femme/dominant' roles played by eachother. One is more manly, one is more feminine. I agree it could hurt a child perhaps, but most gay people adopt...What's worse - Having two same-sex parents, or no parents at all, you know? :P I disagree with the generalization that most gay couples have a feminine and masculine person. That hasn't been my experience at all. And you raise the point that I mentioned - we don't really know 100% what could cause a child starting out with a disadvantage. But to say, as you did in your initial post, that the kid can only be "messed up" because kids makes fun of him blatantly ignores a large portion of the psychiatric world who believe, and for legitimate reason, that a child is better off with both a mother and father. I can't see the justification of discriminating against gay people because of a word which entails discrimination. It's not like it's prohibited for a reason other than religious and social opinion which the law should be blind too. As long as it breaks no law, harms no-one else (sure it may cause offence - but thats not justification to ban it) and makes those people happy then why shouldn't it be allowed? Because a word defines it as man and woman? My assumption then is that you don't support any form of social programs being paid for and sponsored by the government? Okay, so perhaps say that children of gay parents become "messed up". They just do. Let's just assume that for a minute... What does that have to do with gay people not being able to marry? I could see where they can say gay people can't adopt children, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to marry. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
February 7, 200719 yr Author An example of a social program being paid for and sponsered by the Government? (Just so i have this clear). Any social program. Pick one. Okay, so perhaps say that children of gay parents become "messed up". They just do. Let's just assume that for a minute... What does that have to do with gay people not being able to marry? I could see where they can say gay people can't adopt children, but there is no reason they shouldn't be able to marry. Their argument would be that marriage is for the progression of society and since homosexuals cannot add to that progression, it should be heterosexual. That is point in the argument that is being referred to in this initiative they are trying to pass in Washington.
February 7, 200719 yr First it was discrimination against Blacks, now its discrimination against Gays. Whats next? Also, homosexuality isnt a choice for anyone who thinks otherwise. Also, I can't even understand why this is an issue. There are more important things to worry about in the world today. The religious right is gaining too much power. I believe it could one day plunge us into chaos.
February 8, 200719 yr Their argument would be that marriage is for the progression of society and since homosexuals cannot add to that progression, it should be heterosexual. That is point in the argument that is being referred to in this initiative they are trying to pass in Washington. My problem with that argument is, not everyone who gets married is going to have children. So they don't allow homosexuals to get married, that's not going to turn them into heterosexuals. It just means more problems for the government. I think we need to replace all the government officials with people who are better qualified to make laws according to todays society, not the society they knew 40 years ago. Internet Marketing For Newbies
February 8, 200719 yr Author My problem with that argument is, not everyone who gets married is going to have children. So they don't allow homosexuals to get married, that's not going to turn them into heterosexuals. It just means more problems for the government. I think we need to replace all the government officials with people who are better qualified to make laws according to todays society, not the society they knew 40 years ago. Hence, the point of the initiative in Washington.
February 8, 200719 yr Well, making it so that you can't marry unless you can have kids interferes with the whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" deal. If getting married and not having kids makes someone happy, they should do it. I guess all of the sudden homosexual people don't have rights. There's no sig here. Move it along...
February 8, 200719 yr Author I guess all of the sudden homosexual people don't have rights. Did you even read the article or the posts after it?
February 8, 200719 yr And also, gay people can't control the fact that they're gay. studies have shown that homosexuals tend to have an elongated 11th chromosome. There's no sig here. Move it along...
February 8, 200719 yr And also, gay people can't control the fact that they're gay. studies have shown that homosexuals tend to have an elongated 11th chromosome. I wouldn't be surprised. It's usually not voluntary which would suggest it's instilled in genes. I'd have to do some research on it though.
February 8, 200719 yr My assumption then is that you don't support any form of social programs being paid for and sponsored by the government? Well, Government social programs they fund usually mirror their own opinion but thats not neccessarily a bad thing as their opinion on some matters are for the good of society. As long as it doesn't advertise any sort of harmful ideas, or any harmful programs to any law abiding citizen then i wouldn't object to it. If they intervene as much as to promote and indotrinate harmful ideas to people then I wouldn't support it nor would I accept their ability to do that. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 8, 200719 yr no sex before kids! Is what i think. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't have sex before kids, how are you supposed to get kids? No way? Dang you are a smart person :roll: Sure it wasn't a joke, of course i think that way [/sarcasm] [/url]">[4Th in Finland to achieve 99 mining. 3Rd of June 2007]Pixels make me horny.
February 9, 200719 yr Author Well, Government social programs they fund usually mirror their own opinion but thats not neccessarily a bad thing as their opinion on some matters are for the good of society. As long as it doesn't advertise any sort of harmful ideas, or any harmful programs to any law abiding citizen then i wouldn't object to it. If they intervene as much as to promote and indotrinate harmful ideas to people then I wouldn't support it nor would I accept their ability to do that. I'm just confused because you seemed to suggest social programs are inherently bad in your previous post. What would make one social program "good" and one "bad" if they are both just a reflection on belief?
February 9, 200719 yr Sounds like [cabbage] to me... So what if the woman miscarries and can't get a child in 3 years? It takes around 9 months for a woman to have a child, right? What if they get pregnant 6 months before the 3-year limit is up? SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.
February 9, 200719 yr I'm just confused because you seemed to suggest social programs are inherently bad in your previous post. What would make one social program "good" and one "bad" if they are both just a reflection on belief? I said the law should be blind to social and religious prejudice, that doesn't mean they don't need to help society. If by social program you mean funding poor people for medical treatment they can't afford then I would be for that. As they owe a duty to their citizens. If it's too promote harmful ideas to members of society because of social prejudice then i wouldn't be for it in most cases. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 9, 200719 yr Author I'm just confused because you seemed to suggest social programs are inherently bad in your previous post. What would make one social program "good" and one "bad" if they are both just a reflection on belief? I said the law should be blind to social and religious prejudice, that doesn't mean they don't need to help society. If by social program you mean funding poor people for medical treatment they can't afford then I would be for that. As they owe a duty to their citizens. If it's too promote harmful ideas to members of society because of social prejudice then i wouldn't be for it in most cases. Doesn't "helping" society assume an absolute good of some sort, which you deny? You assume that one thing does in fact help a society, but isn't that up for debate if "good" doesn't exist?
February 9, 200719 yr Well, everything can go wrong, take for example people on welfare who spend the money that should go to their children on alcohol and drugs. It depends how far the state regulates the help they give. Which they should do if they are the ones to be giving the help. For example if i was taking care of a drug abuser i wouldn't give them money. I would think i was helping them but if they then went and spent it on drugs then obviously i would not be helping them. I would need to use the money to buy them things they need like food. I guess the question is how far can the state go into regulating the help they give. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 9, 200719 yr Author Well, everything can go wrong, take for example people on welfare who spend the money that should go to their children on alcohol and drugs. It depends how far the state regulates the help they give. Which they should do if they are the ones to be giving the help. For example if i was taking care of a drug abuser i wouldn't give them money. I would think i was helping them but if they then went and spent it on drugs then obviously i would not be helping them. I would need to use the money to buy them things they need like food. I guess the question is how far can the state go into regulating the help they give. That's not my question. My question is how you determine what is "helping." Helping would mean the result is good, but do you believe in an absolute good? Doesn't that mean that "helping" is subject to one's interpretation of "good?" which is subjective?
February 9, 200719 yr You should be able to ask yourself whats best for society's progress. It's subjective, yes. However if you put aside social predujice then you should be able to see that a minority who hurt no-one should be allowed to do something which harms no one and makes them happy. As a pose too why discriminating against them would help society overall. Would it progress us as humans to be discriminating against other humans? It's a subjective question, yes but i beleive that it wouldn't. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 9, 200719 yr Author You should be able to ask yourself whats best for society's progress. It's subjective, yes. However if you put aside social predujice then you should be able to see that a minority who hurt no-one should be allowed to do something which harms no one and makes them happy. As a pose too why discriminating against them would help society overall. Would it progress us as humans to be discriminating against other humans? It's a subjective question, yes but i beleive that it wouldn't. Then you assume that "progression" is "good." Why is that? What if someone want regression? Why do you assume progression to be an absolute good if an absolute good doesn't exist?
February 9, 200719 yr Thats why I said what you beleive to be a good progression of society is subjective. Would it progress us as humans to be discriminating against other humans? It's a subjective question, yes but i beleive that it wouldn't. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 9, 200719 yr Author Thats why I said what you beleive to be a good progression of society is subjective. Would it progress us as humans to be discriminating against other humans? It's a subjective question, yes but i beleive that it wouldn't. No. you said "progress" assuming "progress" is good. Why can't regression be good? Why should I ask if it will progress society and assume progression is better than regression? EDIT: Just to be clear, you said "best for society's progress," assuming society's progress is inherently good and we should do what is best for it.
February 9, 200719 yr If you beleive progress of society to be regress then that is still progressing society to what you beleive to be better isn't it? Thats what i meant. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
Create an account or sign in to comment