Miss California?

[Rubystars]

So NAMBLA in the pride marches was a tactic? I think not. If anything, I suspect it was born of a desperation to get anyone on their side, since they were faced with so much opposition.

Do you really think that a large body of people like that has the ability to meet in secret and plan a tactic like that, mobilising so many others for so long, with one strategic aim such as that in mind? Why, that would be like someone suggesting that a right-winger wants homosexuality firmly back in the closet as the thin edge of a wedge to allow discriminating against people legally.

There is no gay group of which I am aware involved in the pride rallies these days that would have anything to do with Nambla, and it's not as a tactic.

I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.

Pastor: We're going to discriminate against a minority, but you're not that minority, so that's fine. You can feel good about that.

Congregation: Great! Who next?

Yup - a really common technique. My example has as much proof behind it as your claim.

If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.

The problem with legal headway being made it? Oh, you disagree with it. Tab A shouldn't go into slot C. You want separate and unequal status for people, forcing them to go underground for something they cannot control.

I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.

No. No it won't. What happened with the jews? The term 'ghetto' came from an area of Venice known as 'Borghetto', an area of the place on an island where jews were confined between certain times of the day. Similar happened all over Europe. Of course, as soon as they were safely confined behind those walls, the rumours began of the jews perpetrating sorcery and abominations behind the walls, leading to popular unrest against them.

Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.

History has proven humans to be all too fallible time and again. Segregation is not the answer. Treat people as if they should be locked away and soon they will be.

I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.

It won't be spent promoting or encouraging anything. All it will do is accept people for what they are.

Deviants?

Majority of people find it disgusting? I'd love to see your source for that.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

It certainly affects them. You die, and your husband gains some form of financial recompense. You know your husband can inherit your goods after your death - he'll be looked after to the extent of the goods you leave behind. Same goes if he dies - you inherit his goods.

A gay person in a partnership not recognised by the state? Their partner cannot benefit in the same way. As a living couple, they cannot attain the same tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples.

It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

I can see why they'd want the same rights as you, not a subordinate position, and most definitely not a superior position.

They want special rights.

[Rapscallion]

I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.

If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.

It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.

I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.

Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.

Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.

The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.

I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.

The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.

Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.

Deviants?

As people.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?

It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.

They want special rights.

Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right. The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient? And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.

Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?

And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.
And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

[Slytovhand]

I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and

And once again, human beings are being reduced to an action which affects no other people on the planet.. and being judged as less than human (yes, this does presume that heterosexual people are human beings, and have certain entitlements).

And I just want them to be treated as a person, and have all the same rights as any other person on the planet.

I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

So, 'what they do' is the sole reason a government shouldn't allow for a tax break... something that does not have any direct impact on the rest of society (and, by that, I mean there is absolutely no other legal area in which homosexuals are allowed to be discriminated against - as per your constitution).

Those are not questions of "normal" or "abnormal". The first is a question of relative ability. The second is a question of superiority vs. inferiority.

And this is a question of relative worth of a human being, and their basic Human right to choose whom to take as a life partner, and, in doing so, to have access to all the same legal rights and priveleges that any other human being has access to (in your country).

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

To back Raps up on that - if you're going to throw in 'stats', then yes... cos we can say who the majority is, and you can say the majority is.. and if neither of us can prove the validity of the claim then either both of us have to pass on using such terms, or we both get to use them. Fair? (oh, sorry, probably not the right question to be using here, is it?)

I'm not sure how obvious it is to you, but I do hope you are aware that what you are in essence suggesting is that if a certain portion of a population deems something as 'unacceptable', then the government has an obligation to do something about it. Now, from your side of things, and on this particular debate, the ball seems to be well and truly good! But.... (and this is what governments are really about), what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when you are in the minority, and your basic human rights are being walked over? Do you still think that it's ok for a majority to reject your appeals to fairness? I think you've indicated you are Judeo-Christian (esp from your line about "Jews are God's chosen people..."). Every attitude you have indicated towards homosexuals has happened to the Jews and to the Christians at one time or another. Now, they have equal rights (at least in the eyes of some laws... as I mentioned, if you're pagan, you're SOL still...). Speaking of which - according to Christians and Jews (and Muslims too...), what we do (well, what it's claimed we do) is barbaric and disgusting and an insult to the various 'God's of the religions aforementioned. Does that mean I should not be allowed to have equal rights as Christians/Muslims/Jews? Or should only some of my rights get walked over?

You see, we are arguing for a much larger goal - one that has massive repercussions. It's not about gays and lesbians having the right to marry (in the eyes of the law)... well, I hope not! It's about allowing human beings to act in a away that is true to themselves, and having that way acknowledged and legally accepted by the government. If someone is not to have the exact same right as the person sitting next to them, then there had better be a damn good reason for it. What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else. If what a person does has no effect on anyone else (in a negative way, without consent), then what does it matter? Want to marry a car? Why the hell not... it's not like the car will want to walk into the hospital and want to see you if you're sick..(unless it's KITT, of course ) Not that we're suggesting such a thing. We're just arguing against a slippery slope - avoiding a really bad precedent... well, ok, it's a precedent that had been set thousands of years ago...

How about - we're trying to see humans as humans? Is that really too much to ask?

[Slytovhand]

Most people would read that argument and think I was insane,

Umm... actually, I like it

[Nyoibo]

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

Because of people with your atitude.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

Yes please.

[Rubystars]

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.

I'm not sure that there is a "gay agenda" that each and every gay would follow. I've read that some homosexuals are even against gay marriage due to the fact that it's acting too much like straight people.

The political agenda that has been pushed by gay rights groups involves teaching young children in school about homosexuality, allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children, and allowing gays and lesbians to "marry" each other and have it recognized in the same way that a straight marriage would be.

It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.

So it's intolerant if someone doesn't agree with the above mentioned goals, right?

Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.

I made a mistake when I typed that. I meant to type that both have the right to fight for their beliefs to prevail. Just like with any political issue, there are going to be people on both sides of it. Both sides have a right to have their say, and to fight for their own agendas. If gays are going to agitate and demonstrate, then I have the right to say no to what they want too.

The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.

I don't think it's fair to use Jews as an example really, because religious Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality too. Their Bible explicity prohibits male homosexual sex, and their traditions also prohibit lesbianism, though the punishments for the latter aren't quite as severe. Are you accusing them of dehumanizing other people simply because they find those acts to be inappropriate and sinful?

The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.

I don't think they should have tax breaks to begin with, because I believe a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not a valid couple.

Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.
As people.

I have no desire to do physical harm to gays or lesbians.

Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?

I'm not sure what a world wide poll would indicate but including the Islamic countries, the right wing Christians, and other religious groups that oppose homosexuality, I think we can reasonably state that the majority of the world is likely opposed to it. However I don't have a scientific poll.

California did have a chance to have an actual poll, when they got to vote on the matter of homosexual marriage. They voted against it. Therefore if Miss California is expressing that she is against it too, then she adequately represents California (except maybe San Francisco ).

I'm not sure how it is with the USA as a whole. I haven't looked for any recent polls yet.

A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.

The only reason I would consider it acceptable is that to me I don't think that those kind of relationships are equal anyway.

Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

[Rubystars]

So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.

That's true. Maybe the gays should try again in a few years.

Because of people with your atitude.

Yep. People like me will never see this as normal and acceptable.

Yes please.

I want to see the poll too.

[Rapscallion]

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

I'm fresh back from exercise and desperately in need of a shower, so I'm going to tackle the rest of your post later. However, I want to ask you something.

How did you, as a heterosexual, earn the right to call your committed relationship a marriage? What did you do that's so special?

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

I hope you had a good workout.

My answer to your question is this. Heterosexuality is the default sexuality, the normal way of doing things. To me marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman to begin with, so there is no need to justify it or earn the right to call it a marriage. It's only the different forms of sexuality that need to make a case that their types should be considered marriage.

[Rubystars]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

That policy would probably be a better sell in places that were more densely populated than the USA, but if you want to advocate for it, go for it. I may not agree with it but you have the right to advocate for what you believe in.

Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right.

I like it a lot better than China's policies of forced abortion, so in comparison to that it might not be so insane.

The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient?

The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.

And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.

They have higher rates of some diseases though, which may put a bigger burden on the health care system and raise insurance rates.

Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?

I would really prefer it if they kept the whole thing to themselves, but I don't want to legally force them into seclusion. What I do want is for them not to ask for the government to give official legitimacy to their actions.

And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Most stereotypes are based in some part on the truth, yes. The gays that I get along best with are the ones that act normal, not flamboyant. I will be nice to and tolerate having to work with a flamboyant gay or to serve them as a customer, but I wouldn't want to be friends with them on a personal level because I find that behavior to be highly distasteful and embarassing. I would be able to be friends with a gay that acted normal in public even if I didn't agree with everything they did.

Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.

I'm sorry that happened. Unfortunately the will of the deceased is not always followed. My grandfather was rich and his second wife got everything, leaving my dad out in the cold because he was the son of my grandfather's first wife. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to have inherited some of that money but it apparently wasn't meant to be.

And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.

[smileyeagle1021]

What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else.

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?

ETA-

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.

The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle. You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.
And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child... I'm assuming you are also implying that said men are gay. Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm? Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

[BroomJockey]

The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.

Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere. It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

[Rubystars]

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?

I'd be interested in the stats on how many gays are promiscuous versus how many gays are in single partner, long-term relationships. Have there been any studies on this?

The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle.

Well that would have been fine too, but I agree with the judge that if you were living with any family it would be ok.

You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.

I think that ideally, a child should have both a mother and a father in their lives. I think this is healthy. In your case, there were special circumstances where that couldn't happen, and you had the alternatives of living in two different situations with family members. I think that was ok.

And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child...

Here's what I meant by that. I think that it's bad when a single mother feels like she has to get married again "for the sake of the children". All it does is expose the kids to emotional turmoil and to potentially abusive "step fathers".

I didn't mean those guys were gay.

Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm?

Both straight and gay people can be evil.

Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

I don't like the idea of gay couples adopting children, but you're right that their orientation doesn't mean that they will be abusive or anything like that.

[Rubystars]

Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere.

That's still based around the man-woman marriage situation forming a new family.

It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

It might not be a bad idea for that to be more common. It does seem awfully cold and cruel to abandon elders in nursing homes. Of course there are some situations such as extreme dementia where a family may not be able to handle the situation without help, but I think it's best to avoid the whole putting the elderly into homes thing if possible.