adoption by gay couples?

[Circe]

Date: 6/30/2010 10:52:40 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/29/2010 11:03:53 PM

Author: lucyandroger

Date: 6/29/2010 9:48:19 PM


Author: brazen_irish_hussy



I am honestly curious, how is different from interracial marriage? It is not natural, people have always been with their own kind, they cannot produce viable offspring, the bible says it is wrong, where is the difference?

Huh

Interracial couples most certainly can and DO produce viable offspring. Also not sure what you''re referring to in the Bible...VERY strange.



ETA - I believe that capable and willing adults should be allowed to adopt, no matter their sexual orientation.

Ditto LucyandRoger. BIH, could you please clarify your statement? I really hope I''m not misreading this as you saying interracial marriages are not natural because they''re not ''of their own kind'' and cannot produce viable offspring. However, from your previous comments about you being upset over being a white upper class kid who was made fun of instead of your little ''dark skinned'' friend, I''m not sure...

I''m guessing here, but I think BIH was referencing some of the completely asinine arguments that were made against interracial marriage 50 years ago (and, in some circles, still today, gods help us all). Referencing, not supporting ....

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

That''s fine Circe; however as I stated in my post, considering her earlier comment I''d prefer that she step up and clarify her words rather than have someone else do it for her.

 

[Circe]

Date: 6/30/2010 10:59:02 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
That''s fine Circe; however as I stated in my post, considering her earlier comment I''d prefer that she step up and clarify her words rather than have someone else do it for her.

I ... read that one as pretty innocuous, too (more a counter to the "probable discrimination" argument than anything else), but this is just my inner critic yearning to be free. I''ll shut up and let BIH speak for herself now.

 

[Ella]

Please remember that we do not allow discussions of politics, religion, or race. All of which this thread is bordering on. Please stay on topic. Personal insults will not be tolerated.

 

[NovemberBride]

I believe in adoption by gay couples 100% and support the rights of gay couples to have children by whatever means they choose. I cannot stand bigotry of any kind and will do my absolute best to teach my daughter that there are many kinds of families, and that they are all equal in our eyes.

Penn, I have read many of your posts about your twins and you strike me as an amazing father. It is so sad to me that you are afraid for what your children will face in school, and I hope that your worry is for nothing and that your children and your family will be accepted as any other family would be. And I think it is even sadder that Kenny will not consider having children because of the bigotry they may face. I sincerely believe and hope that our world is changing and that my the time our children have children this issue will no longer exist.

It honestly boggles my mind, knowing the deplorable conditions that some children in this country and other face along with a shortage of couples willing to adopt those children (the long wait for adoptions in this country sadly only applies to Caucasian babies without any special needs) that there are people who would oppose adoption by gay couples who might be willing to give these children a loving home.

 

[TravelingGal]

This is the bottom line from me, a fairly conservative republican.

I believe it is a fact that gay people are capable of love. Older people are capable of love. Single people are capable of love.

There are children who need love because for whatever reason, a most likely STRAIGHT MAN and STRAIGHT WOMAN created them and couldn''t offer them care and love. I don''t care for children to be used in anyone''s agenda.

They NEED love. Let the gay people give it. Let the older couples give it. Let the single parents give it.

As a mother, I am not perfect. But I love my child. And as a result, she thrives (because let''s face it, it''s not my cooking.)

 

[Laila619]

Obviously, gay adoption is better than having a child languish in an orphanage, or be mistreated by his bio parents.

But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

The sad reality is that if you can't reproduce on your own (this includes gays obviously), you're subject to all sorts of hoops and other crap to attain a child another way. A drugged out woman on crack and food stamps can pop out a kid any time she wants, but a loving and committed couple who is infertile and wants to adopt has to endure all sorts of extensive interviews, intrusive home studies, paperwork, etc. It's total BS but that's the way it is. Never mind that they are way more qualified and stable than the crack mom, but you don't see her having to jump through hoops or be pre-approved.

 

[kenny]

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM
Author: Laila619
But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

Great question that really gets to the core of the issue: "Is homosexuality a bad thing?"

If there was no bigotry-disguised-as-morality in the world it would be a coin toss.
Since there still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the straight couple is the best choice today, IMHO.

 

[Beacon]

I totallly support allowing gay couples to adopt kids. If they have the love and the means to provide for a family then why not? No problems with it at all here.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 6/30/2010 1:08:19 PM
Author: TravelingGal
This is the bottom line from me, a fairly conservative republican.

I believe it is a fact that gay people are capable of love. Older people are capable of love. Single people are capable of love.


There are children who need love because for whatever reason, a most likely STRAIGHT MAN and STRAIGHT WOMAN created them and couldn''t offer them care and love. I don''t care for children to be used in anyone''s agenda.


They NEED love. Let the gay people give it. Let the older couples give it. Let the single parents give it.


As a mother, I am not perfect. But I love my child. And as a result, she thrives (because let''s face it, it''s not my cooking.)

Those are my same feelings.

 

[Cehrabehra]

I was really hoping this thread wouldn''t take this turn, I am far too narrow minded about the prejudicial attitudes of others to not use their words against my judgment of their characters. The whole intolerance of intolerance thing. I just hate seeing people''s ugly sides because it ruins my blissful ignorance.

I am sitting firmly on the LEFT bench at this party. Mai tai anyone?

 

[Jennifer W]

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM
Author: Laila619
Obviously, gay adoption is better than having a child languish in an orphanage, or be mistreated by his bio parents.


But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

That wouldn''t be my automatic assumption, nor would it be the legal presumption in the UK.

Jen

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:22:08 PM
Author: E B

Date: 6/29/2010 10:06:13 PM

Author: MarquiseGirl

As far as the whole ''natural'' thing is concerned, Adam and Eve had children the old fashioned way. Without the egg+sperm we, as a human race, would no longer exist. It is a fact that without those two elements we would become extinct. That is natural. ''2 of a kind'' simply cannot do this, naturally.

Again, I see what you''re saying, but I don''t see how it has anything to do with the subject at hand. Whether or not two people can create a child has nothing to do with their ability to parent one. There are [/i]plenty[/i] of deadbeat heterosexual couples able to create a child who fail at raising them.


Labeling an entire group of people unfit to raise a child because of their sexual organs makes absolutely no sense to me, but it''s deeper than that, obviously. We''re willing to be ''un-PC'' to a certain point, but why won''t you (the collective) say, ''I disagree with a homosexual''s lifestyle, and wouldn''t want a child brought up in it,'' or ''I believe it''s possible that two gay parents will turn a child gay.'' While I personally find both of these statements ridiculous and untrue, they''d make more sense as arguments than ''They have two penises and can''t make a child. Therefore, they shouldn''t raise children.'' If that''s your argument, then anyone who can''t make a child shouldn''t raise one, infertile couples included. Do you agree with that statement?

THANK YOU, EB!!

What about a single, biological, lesbian mom? Or single, biological, gay dad. No homosexual coupledom here. I bet those against gay couples adopting would be against these scenarios as well, even though the baby was made with sperm + egg. Perhaps I''m making an assumption, but I think this has less to do with biology/sperm/egg/"nature"/baby needs a mom & dad, and more to do with the overall belief that homosexuality is wrong and immoral and gay people should not parent. If that''s your opinion, fine. We will have to agree to disagree. But don''t disguise it was "penis + vagina = parents" and instead say what I *think* you really mean: I don''t agree with homosexuality.. and because of this, I don''t think homosexuals should be parents- EVER.

I''m 100% for capable, loving gay parenting. Maybe we should ban heterosexual parenting and only allow for homosexual parents, in hopes of future generations being more open-minded, loving and considerate of those outside the dominant culture. Le sigh.

 

[dragonfly411]

Date: 6/29/2010 11:51:27 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM

Author: dragonfly411

apparently I missed a lot.


I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.


I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you ''don''t agree with gay/lesbianism''?

Yes they do actually. I don''t mean it in an insulting manner... for me.. it just doesn''t make a lot of sense.. and I don''t fully understand it. I am not out to control who they are or what they do though, but I make it clear that I don''t want to be hit on (in the case of lesbian friends) or discuss how good looking a guy is with a gay friend. I have several very good friends who are gay and or lesbian and to each their own, I can respect them without agreeing with their sexual preference. They aren''t straight... I''m not gay. I don''t think being gay makes natural sense. That''s just how I think and feel. I don''t dislike them as people, I don''t lack in any kind of respect for them as individuals.

Thing 2 you are awfully casual about throwing around the term ignorant, along with bigot. I have seen it several times from you and I am starting to be slightly offended by it. If someone doesn''t agree with you then they are ignorant or they are a bigot. I think that is a bit closed minded.

I stated my thoughts, and it''s how I feel. You don''t have to agree with me. I really don''t care whether you do or not. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am ignorant as you did in the post before you asked this question.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/29/2010 10:01:34 PM
Author: pennquaker09
For what it''s worth, and to maybe calm this thread down a little bit because I would personally like for it to remain open, but I, as a gay parent, understand what Steal is trying to say. And it doesn''t offend me that she feels this way. What are we without our morals? She has beliefs that are near and dear to her, and I would never ask her to change those.

However, Steal, when you mention biology, I kind of want to understand what you''re saying fully. Because like I said earlier, that assumes that everyone is heterosexual, has the desire to get married, inferitility didn''t exist . . . essentially it would be a Stepford like world. Would it not?

I love this about you PQ.

I have no problem when people vocalize their beliefts, even if I don''t agree with them. It irritates me more when people come across as condescending and superior, although I do think this is a normal reaction and everyone is guilty of it to a degree.

I just know the basics, and this I learned from my marriage. Change does not come from two people yelling at each other, making their case, and calling each other names (no matter how deserved). Change comes when both learn how to shut up and listen.

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

Date: 6/30/2010 1:21:52 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM

Author: Laila619

But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

Great question that really gets to the core of the issue: 'Is homosexuality a bad thing?'


If there was no bigotry-disguised-as-morality in the world it would be a coin toss.

Since there still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the straight couple is the best choice today, IMHO.

Admittedly, I am a bit biased toward homosexual couples... But anyway... I would still do a coin toss, even in today's "day & age." Some may view this as placing the adoptee/child on the front line of debate and criticism, but without discord there's no progress. I don't think the child's quality of life would actually be sacrificed or reduced- there's always one thing or another that kids will be teased about. To choose the hetero couple only to avoid the possibility of societal tension or backlash is to halt any progress. Issues like this should not be skirted around or brushed under the rug- they should be faced head-on. I agree that change takes time, but why delay it longer than it needs to be? To allow bigotry and discrimination to continue is to silently support it, IMHO.

Sorry- off the soapbox

Studying 'social justice in education' makes me a bit too opinionated for my own good, I think

ETA: ...And I realize that some will disagree with this 100%. I can't change someone's personal beliefs or opinions, and they can't change mine. Unfortunately, I am still a pest and will try to get others to see my side of the story. It's not that I always think I'm right (lord knows I'm OFTEN wrong), but sometimes, admittedly, I do think I'm right

Don't we all?

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:07:34 PM
Author: Jennifer W

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM

Author: Laila619

Obviously, gay adoption is better than having a child languish in an orphanage, or be mistreated by his bio parents.



But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

That wouldn't be my automatic assumption, nor would it be the legal presumption in the UK.


Jen

Ditto (I am in Canada though).

I would do a coin toss.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:18:49 PM
Author: PilsnPinkysMom

Date: 6/30/2010 1:21:52 PM

Author: kenny

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM


Author: Laila619


But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

Great question that really gets to the core of the issue: 'Is homosexuality a bad thing?'



If there was no bigotry-disguised-as-morality in the world it would be a coin toss.


Since there still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the straight couple is the best choice today, IMHO.

Admittedly, I am a bit biased toward homosexual couples... But anyway... I would still do a coin toss, even in today's 'day & age.' Some may view this as placing the adoptee/child on the front line of debate and criticism, but without discord there's no progress. I don't think the child's quality of life would actually be sacrificed or reduced- there's always one thing or another that kids will be teased about. To choose the hetero couple only to avoid the possibility of societal tension or backlash is to halt any progress. Issues like this should not be skirted around or brushed under the rug- they should be faced head-on. I agree that change takes time, but why delay it longer than it needs to be? To allow bigotry and discrimination to continue is to silently support it, IMHO.


Sorry- off the soapbox

Studying 'social justice in education' makes me a bit too opinionated for my own good, I think

And ditto this one too! Only I did not study social justice in education. I am just opinionated. Ha.

I was thinking of a hypothetical where I had the choice to give my hypothetical baby, who I could not care for, to my brother and his male fiance, or to my sister and her male partner.

Assuming both couples really wanted said baby and I know both would be great sets of parents........I would rather my child went to my brother and his partner.

Indeed, should we HAVE children, it is my brother and his partner who I would prefer be put in our wills as first choice of guardians to our children should something happen to my husband and I.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:18:49 PM
Author: PilsnPinkysMom

Date: 6/30/2010 1:21:52 PM
Author: kenny

Date: 6/30/2010 1:18:40 PM

Author: Laila619

But say there were two choices for said child: two equally stable and loving couples who were wanting to adopt him, one gay and one hetero. Would everyone agree in that instance that the hetero couple is best for the child?

Great question that really gets to the core of the issue: ''Is homosexuality a bad thing?''


If there was no bigotry-disguised-as-morality in the world it would be a coin toss.

Since there still is, and will be for the foreseeable future, the straight couple is the best choice today, IMHO.

Admittedly, I am a bit biased toward homosexual couples... But anyway... I would still do a coin toss, even in today''s ''day & age.'' Some may view this as placing the adoptee/child on the front line of debate and criticism, but without discord there''s no progress. I don''t think the child''s quality of life would actually be sacrificed or reduced- there''s always one thing or another that kids will be teased about. To choose the hetero couple only to avoid the possibility of societal tension or backlash is to halt any progress. Issues like this should not be skirted around or brushed under the rug- they should be faced head-on. I agree that change takes time, but why delay it longer than it needs to be? To allow bigotry and discrimination to continue is to silently support it, IMHO.

Sorry- off the soapbox

Studying ''social justice in education'' makes me a bit too opinionated for my own good, I think

ETA: ...And I realize that some will disagree with this 100%. I can''t change someone''s personal beliefs or opinions, and they can''t change mine. Unfortunately, I am still a pest and will try to get others to see my side of the story. It''s not that I always think I''m right (lord knows I''m OFTEN wrong), but sometimes, admittedly, I do think I''m right

Don''t we all?

But that''s just the thing. In an issue such as this one, people just want to make someone see their side of the story, and that''s it. It has to be equal parts, if not more about trying to UNDERSTAND, sincerely and while keeping the agenda at a minimum, WHY the other person thinks what they do. What''s at the root of it. And learning from it.

I firmly believe that the vocal supporters of gay adoption on this thread has the agenda of changing laws and mindset so that gays can adopt, right? If so, they''d better learn to understand what they are dealing with, because change is possible, but not with the tactics I often see on threads like this.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Date: 6/30/2010 10:52:40 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk

Date: 6/29/2010 11:03:53 PM

Author: lucyandroger

Date: 6/29/2010 9:48:19 PM


Author: brazen_irish_hussy



I am honestly curious, how is different from interracial marriage? It is not natural, people have always been with their own kind, they cannot produce viable offspring, the bible says it is wrong, where is the difference?

Huh

Interracial couples most certainly can and DO produce viable offspring. Also not sure what you're referring to in the Bible...VERY strange.

ETA - I believe that capable and willing adults should be allowed to adopt, no matter their sexual orientation.

Ditto LucyandRoger. BIH, could you please clarify your statement? I really hope I'm not misreading this as you saying interracial marriages are not natural because they're not 'of their own kind' and cannot produce viable offspring. However, from your previous comments about you being upset over being a white upper class kid who was made fun of instead of your little 'dark skinned' friend, I'm not sure...

Sorry, PS was giving me a runtime error for a long time so I just got back.

If you read the legal opinions from the time that interracial marriage was illegal, these were the reasons they cited. They believed interracial children, while possible, were inherently inferior and therefore not viable. The most common reason cited by judges at the time was that it was somehow unnatural, that races were meant to exist and consanguinity disrupted the natural order. There are a lot of quotes from the bible about the chosen ones not mixing with outsiders and lesser groups. Actually, there arguments on that front are strong than against homosexuals. Arsenokoitai, translated as "gay" is a word that was used very rarely, so to translate it is extremely difficult. If Paul wanted to mean homosexual, why didn't he use paiderasste, the common word everyone else used? The logical answer is that he was trying to say something different than just homosexuality. Actually, the Sibylline Oracles, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum all use arsenokoitai as pimp, so that is probably the best translation of it.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Statement No. 1: Same-sex marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, "simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Statement No. 2. An organization opposed to gay marriage claimed legalizing them would result in "a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development," and rested this belief on the "natural superiority with which God (has) ennobled heterosexuals."

Statement No. 3. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose gay marriage as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," grumped a noted psychologist. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

Statement No. 4. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing gay marriages "necessarily involves (the) degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than execration."

Statement No. 5. "The next step will be that gays and lesbians will demand a law allowing them, without restraint, to . . . have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters," warned a Kentucky congressman. "It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."

Statement No. 6. "When people of the same sex marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny," wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. "And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages."

Statement No 7. Same-sex marriages are "abominable," according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would "pollute" America.
Statement No 8. In denying the appeal of a same-sex couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are "not only unnatural, but . . . always productive of deplorable results," such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. "They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good . . . (in accordance with) the God of nature."

Statement No. 9. A gay marriage ban is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it "applies equally to men and women."

Statement No. 10. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are "distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race. . . ." The state supreme court agreed, declaring gay marriages would be "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

Statement No. 11. Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on same-sex marriage is necessary to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior. . . . (and entered into by) the dregs of society."

Statement No. 12. "The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates," thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state's non-recognition of same-sex unions. "And not," he continued, "to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage."


For people who agreed with any of the above statements, you just agreed with preventing interracial marriages, as the original of these quotes were not about same sex at all. So again, tell me how they are different?

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:11:53 PM
Author: dragonfly411

Date: 6/29/2010 11:51:27 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM

Author: dragonfly411

apparently I missed a lot.


I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.


I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you ''don''t agree with gay/lesbianism''?

Yes they do actually. I don''t mean it in an insulting manner... for me.. it just doesn''t make a lot of sense.. and I don''t fully understand it. I am not out to control who they are or what they do though, but I make it clear that I don''t want to be hit on (in the case of lesbian friends) or discuss how good looking a guy is with a gay friend. I have several very good friends who are gay and or lesbian and to each their own, I can respect them without agreeing with their sexual preference. They aren''t straight... I''m not gay. I don''t think being gay makes natural sense. That''s just how I think and feel. I don''t dislike them as people, I don''t lack in any kind of respect for them as individuals.

Thing 2 you are awfully casual about throwing around the term ignorant, along with bigot. I have seen it several times from you and I am starting to be slightly offended by it. If someone doesn''t agree with you then they are ignorant or they are a bigot. I think that is a bit closed minded.

I stated my thoughts, and it''s how I feel. You don''t have to agree with me. I really don''t care whether you do or not. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am ignorant as you did in the post before you asked this question.

It doesn''t make SENSE? You know how you feel about your boyfriend. That makes sense to you, right? Well, just imagine thats how your gay and lesbian friends feel about their significant others. Got it?? Love is love! What doesn''t make sense about that??

Saying something like, "It''s not a choice I would make" is a lot less offensive than saying that you don''t "agree" with it or that it "doesn''t make sense." No one will think that youre a bigoted ignorant girl for saying something like that. THAT makes perfect sense. You''re a heterosexual girl, you choose not to be with other girls. Your boyfriend is a hetersexual male, he chooses to not be with other men. No one can argue with that.

Also, do you make it clear to your straight, male friends that you don''t want to be hit on by them as well? How incredibly self-centered to think that just because a female friend is a lesbian that she will hit on you. Wow. You realize how ignorant (and I''m not being "casual" here) that makes you sound, right? It also makes you sound really paranoid.

 

[dragonfly411]

Claritek - I make it apparent to anyone that I don''t want to be hit on yes. I was speaking about natural... scientific sense.

Thanks yet again for calling me ignorant. I appreciate it guys.


Jeez

 

[NovemberBride]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:11:53 PM
Author: dragonfly411

Date: 6/29/2010 11:51:27 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM


Author: dragonfly411


apparently I missed a lot.



I do think that it''s OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.



I personally don''t agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can''t help who you love, and it''s not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I''d rather see them over people who aren''t financially stable. I''d prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you ''don''t agree with gay/lesbianism''?

Yes they do actually. I don''t mean it in an insulting manner... for me.. it just doesn''t make a lot of sense.. and I don''t fully understand it. I am not out to control who they are or what they do though, but I make it clear that I don''t want to be hit on (in the case of lesbian friends) or discuss how good looking a guy is with a gay friend. I have several very good friends who are gay and or lesbian and to each their own, I can respect them without agreeing with their sexual preference. They aren''t straight... I''m not gay. I don''t think being gay makes natural sense. That''s just how I think and feel. I don''t dislike them as people, I don''t lack in any kind of respect for them as individuals.


Thing 2 you are awfully casual about throwing around the term ignorant, along with bigot. I have seen it several times from you and I am starting to be slightly offended by it. If someone doesn''t agree with you then they are ignorant or they are a bigot. I think that is a bit closed minded.


I stated my thoughts, and it''s how I feel. You don''t have to agree with me. I really don''t care whether you do or not. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am ignorant as you did in the post before you asked this question.

Seriously Dragonfly, you feel the need to inform all of your lesbian friends that you don''t want to be hit on by them? Do you also inform all of your straight male friends of the same thing? Why on earth would you assume that just because they are attracted to females that they would be attracted to you? I can tell you that I have a lot of lesbian friends and a lot of straight male friends, and I have had a lot more of the straight males hit on me than the lesbians.

This kind of statement just sounds so ignorant to me. Gay men and women don''t make a move on everyone they know anymore than straight people do. In fact, due to homophobia and fears for their physical safety, the gay people I know are extremely unlikely to hit on someone unless they no for a fact that the other person is gay as well. Just like us straight folks, they don''t want to be embarrassed or rejected when they get up the courage to hit on someone.

Rant over.

 

[kenny]

I didn't choose to be gay.
How absurd.
Why would anyone choose to be in a hated group?

I was different since my earliest memories.
I lived in confusion and self-hate till I had my first experience at age 23.
(Imagine if 10 years of dating and healthy development were erased from your life.)

Even today I'm positive that the damage from hate is not fully reversed.

 

[CNOS128]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:11:53 PM
Author: dragonfly411

Yes they do actually. I don''t mean it in an insulting manner... for me.. it just doesn''t make a lot of sense.. and I don''t fully understand it. I am not out to control who they are or what they do though, but I make it clear that I don''t want to be hit on (in the case of lesbian friends) or discuss how good looking a guy is with a gay friend. I have several very good friends who are gay and or lesbian and to each their own, I can respect them without agreeing with their sexual preference. They aren''t straight... I''m not gay. I don''t think being gay makes natural sense. That''s just how I think and feel. I don''t dislike them as people, I don''t lack in any kind of respect for them as individuals.


Thing 2 you are awfully casual about throwing around the term ignorant, along with bigot. I have seen it several times from you and I am starting to be slightly offended by it. If someone doesn''t agree with you then they are ignorant or they are a bigot. I think that is a bit closed minded.


I stated my thoughts, and it''s how I feel. You don''t have to agree with me. I really don''t care whether you do or not. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am ignorant as you did in the post before you asked this question.

But, being gay IS part of who they are as people and as individuals. It''s not just about sex. I don''t understand how you can say you respect someone as a person, but you "disagree" with who they are, fundamentally.

Also, it''s ludicrous to think that just because a woman is gay, she''ll want to hit on you, an ostensibly straight woman. THAT, in my opinion, is ignorance.

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:51:45 PM
Author: kenny
I didn''t choose to be gay.
How absurd.
Why would anyone choose to be in a hated group?

I was different since my earliest memories.

Kenny, I thought about my use of the word "choice." It wasn''t ideal and I certainly agree that people don''t choose to be gay or straight, its the way that they are.
I''m very dearly sorry if I offended you with that choice of words. I was trying to make suggestion to DF about her statement making.

 

[kenny]

Clairtek, thanks.
No worries.

Frankly, I do not even keep track of who says what in these threads.
It is all just ideas bubbling around in a pot.
Nothing personal.
After all, this IS the Internet.

 

[RaiKai]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:51:27 PM
Author: NovemberBride

Date: 6/30/2010 2:11:53 PM

Author: dragonfly411

Date: 6/29/2010 11:51:27 PM


Author: thing2of2

Date: 6/29/2010 11:20:41 PM



Author: dragonfly411



apparently I missed a lot.




I do think that it's OK for people to not be ok on it, based on moral differences between people.




I personally don't agree with gay/lesbianism mainly because of laws of nature more than anything. That being said, I also agree you can't help who you love, and it's not for me to dictate. I have gay friends... I have lesbian friends. I certainly would much rather have a gay/lesbian couple who are responsible and caring people raise a child over somone who might abuse, kill, neglect or hurt their child. I'd rather see them over people who aren't financially stable. I'd prefer to see them to single parents who are single due to divorce even if that sounds harsh. I think children being able to see loving, compatible relationships is so so important to their future relationships.

Do all your gay and lesbian friends know you 'don't agree with gay/lesbianism'?

Yes they do actually. I don't mean it in an insulting manner... for me.. it just doesn't make a lot of sense.. and I don't fully understand it. I am not out to control who they are or what they do though, but I make it clear that I don't want to be hit on (in the case of lesbian friends) or discuss how good looking a guy is with a gay friend. I have several very good friends who are gay and or lesbian and to each their own, I can respect them without agreeing with their sexual preference. They aren't straight... I'm not gay. I don't think being gay makes natural sense. That's just how I think and feel. I don't dislike them as people, I don't lack in any kind of respect for them as individuals.



Thing 2 you are awfully casual about throwing around the term ignorant, along with bigot. I have seen it several times from you and I am starting to be slightly offended by it. If someone doesn't agree with you then they are ignorant or they are a bigot. I think that is a bit closed minded.



I stated my thoughts, and it's how I feel. You don't have to agree with me. I really don't care whether you do or not. But I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implying that I am ignorant as you did in the post before you asked this question.

Seriously Dragonfly, you feel the need to inform all of your lesbian friends that you don't want to be hit on by them? Do you also inform all of your straight male friends of the same thing? Why on earth would you assume that just because they are attracted to females that they would be attracted to you? I can tell you that I have a lot of lesbian friends and a lot of straight male friends, and I have had a lot more of the straight males hit on me than the lesbians.


This kind of statement just sounds so ignorant to me. Gay men and women don't make a move on everyone they know anymore than straight people do. In fact, due to homophobia and fears for their physical safety, the gay people I know are extremely unlikely to hit on someone unless they no for a fact that the other person is gay as well. Just like us straight folks, they don't want to be embarrassed or rejected when they get up the courage to hit on someone.


Rant over.

Rant further adopted.

Dragonfly, I wonder how much your friends know about your thoughts about their orientation. My guess is not as much as you have written here. Or they likely would have found new friends.

I have been hit on by a couple lesbians (and actually propositioned). I certainly took no offense to it all (though I made it clear I was not interested!). Nor do think for one iota I must be attractive to all lesbians as a result of the fact that I have a vagina.

I've had far more straight males hit on me that I wish had not, than I ever have females.

 

[Clairitek]

Date: 6/30/2010 2:58:39 PM
Author: kenny
Clairtek, thanks.
No worries.

Frankly, I do not even keep track of who says what in these threads.
It is all just ideas bubbling around in a pot.
Nothing personal.
After all, this IS the Internet.

I''m glad that we''re cool.