Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got

reply to post by vipertech0596


Just like if you keep letting the government limit the rights and actions of people it won't stop. This anti-gay marriage issue was nothing before the supreme court struck down anti-sodomy laws. Those laws were in place as a way to make homosexuality illegal. Once those were found unconstitutional the ultra right wing started looking for a new way to make homosexuality illegal. They couldn't so now they find new ways to "discourage" the activity and "protect" "moral" people from the evil homosexuals.

Sorry, but by accepting the premise that government discreminating against a class of humans for their private activities - that harm no one - you are opening the door to further forms of discremination. The government has no role in legislating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. That is not what the founding of this country was about.

If not marriage at least civil unions should be allowed. I'm sorry but a couple that has been together for years and suffered through the same trials as a heterosexual couple should get the same benifits that come from the legally condoned act of marriage.

Has one politician or NGO working on making gay marriage legal even mentioned advocated non-human marriage. No, and that is why the slippery slope doesn't work. It isn't like gun control where politicians say, "we want all guns off of the street." It isn't like taxes because politicians and NGOs are constantly advocating more taxes or new taxes. All that is being asked for is the right of consenting adult citizens to enjoy full protection under the law.

You do realize that the, "it won't stop at humans" line is very similar to what was said when blacks were fighting for civil rights. There was more than one person that argued they were less than human. There was more than one person that argued letting blacks in to schools would destroy the intelligence of white children. I remember watching a documentary where a guy said, "next they'll be letting retards and monkeys in to our schools." I hear a lot of the same baseless rhetoric in the arguments against homosexual marriage.

Very well stated position by an articulate young man.

My family has also positively experienced this reality as my cousin is also part of a same sex family, with him and his partner adopting and raising three little boys. He and his family are a beloved part of our clan.

That being said I still remain torn on this issue. Not because I wish to oppress or diminish the commitment and love inherent in same sex families, I absolutely don't, but rather because these families are looking to the government for some sort of acknowledgment or legitimacy and I don't believe the government is qualified to either grant or deny this request.

In my opinion this question is a question of culture, not government. And while the government can certainly reflect our culture it is not the keeper of it. To me this matter can only be settled by the people, not the courts, not the legislature, not the governor. And that means referundum.

Unfortunately, this issue seems unable to gain the support needed to pass referendum even in left leaning states lime CA. And sadly, until the people agree to adjust this core tenant of our culture, these families will have to continue without the acknowledgment and legal status they so greatly desire.

This is my first post and I've been lurking in here for years. Love this place.

I hope this is taken in the proper view but...What if two heterosexual parents raised a homosexual child and he were this well spoken would anything have been said about it?

Originally posted by Darkstar12
This is my first post and I've been lurking in here for years. Love this place.

I hope this is taken in the proper view but...What if two heterosexual parents raised a homosexual child and he were this well spoken would anything have been said about it?

That is exactly the point of the testimony on the young man in the clip.

reply to post by MikeNice81


The ultra right wing had little to do with forcing this issue. It was forced by homosexual couples wanting to marry.

And I stand by the statement that we as a society discriminate against people every day of the week

reply to post by Indigo5


How on earth would you know what I have or haven't done?

reply to post by MikeNice81


And yes, it has been mentioned by some people that they love their cats, dogs, horses etc....so much that they want to have a legally recognized union with them.

Your suggestion that the slippery slope argument has any relation to the civil rights movement is absurd.

reply to post by thebtheb


The animal kingdom has nothing to do with Humans morality. Using that is a extremely poor example.

Humans were are born with a moral conscience. Animals aren't...

P.S I am not judging anyone, just stateing the facts!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

The ultra right wing had little to do with forcing this issue. It was forced by homosexual couples wanting to marry.

You might want to go back and check on that. Karl Rove helped to set it up as the big wedge issue in 2004.

In the 2004 context that Reihan was specifically referencing, Green singles out gay marriage as an issue that others in the GOP feared Rove was overplaying, thanks to his long experience in Texas: "Several consultants pointed to the issue of gay marriage, which one described as a perfect Texas wedge issue.... But he doubted that the issue would have the same effect in the less conservative battleground states that are expected to decide this election."

But this is really nothing compared to the gay smears in which Rove had long specialized:

One constant throughout his career is the prevalence of whisper campaigns against opponents.... [O]ften a Rove campaign questions an opponent's sexual orientation. Bush's 1994 race against Ann Richards featured a rumor that she was a lesbian, along with a rare instance of such a tactic's making it into the public record—when a regional chairman of the Bush campaign allowed himself, perhaps inadvertently, to be quoted criticizing Richards for "appointing avowed homosexual activists" to state jobs.

Karl Rove In A Corner

Yeah, the GOP did bring this fight about for political and personal reasons. The biggest groups starting campaigns to add these admendments to state constitutions are church or "conservative" NGOs. Blaming gay couples for being attacked by these people is rediculous.

I guess black people were to blame for Jim Crow laws. I mean hey, who were they to want equal protection under the law. It is the exact same thing. The only way to argue against gay marriage is to say that gays are either less human or some how less than a full citizen. Neither of those are true.

A person can not marry an animal because animals are considerred property. They are not human and have none of the legal rights of humans. They can not allowed to be involved in a marriage unless they are granted human and citizen status. That isn't going to happen. Now show me one serious organization that has advocated human and animal union. I don't mean some group with 30 members in one state that is run out of a guy's basement. I mean a group that has a national following and a few thousand members.

Man I wish I could speak like that in public, well done to him and hope it helps the cause.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

And yes, it has been mentioned by some people that they love their cats, dogs, horses etc....so much that they want to have a legally recognized union with them.

Your suggestion that the slippery slope argument has any relation to the civil rights movement is absurd.

I met a lady the other night at work that claims Jesus talks to her through a statue in her living room. There will always be people on the fringe of everything. Gays are not some super fringe group. According to the Institute of Medicine for the National Institutes of Health over 11% of Americans admit to engaging in same sex sexual relations.

In 1960 only 11% of the American population was black. We all agree that blacks deserved equal treatment. Why don't gays? They make up roughly the same percentage of the population as blacks did when the civil rights strugle came to a head.

Why is it absurd? They are the same arguments being used against allowing fellow citizens full protection under the law.

reply to post by MikeNice81


You might want to double check yourself....especially about Iowa, it predates Karl Rove.


And I find it interesting you keep bringing up civil rights issues........and then point out that animals are considered property.........the same way plantation owners considered their slaves, animals and property...........

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

And yes, it has been mentioned by some people that they love their cats, dogs, horses etc....so much that they want to have a legally recognized union with them.

Your suggestion that the slippery slope argument has any relation to the civil rights movement is absurd.

I met a lady the other night at work that claims Jesus talks to her through a statue in her living room. There will always be people on the fringe of everything. Gays are not some super fringe group. According to the Institute of Medicine for the National Institutes of Health over 11% of Americans admit to engaging in same sex sexual relations.

In 1960 only 11% of the American population was black. We all agree that blacks deserved equal treatment. Why don't gays? They make up roughly the same percentage of the population as blacks did when the civil rights strugle came to a head.

Why is it absurd? They are the same arguments being used against allowing fellow citizens full protection under the law.

This 11% figure is not true, seriously, it isn't- you would be lucky for the figure for homosexualss to be hitting 5%.

Ehhhhh..............whatever!

over so much arguing and bickering, its nothing. The kid turned out all right and has a good life, fantastic. Shows over.

To say there is a defect in having two same sex parents and that the outcome of child raised by such parents is negative is based on nothing. It swings both way and is more tied to the parents overall temperament.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by thebtheb

 

The animal kingdom has nothing to do with Humans morality. Using that is a extremely poor example.

Humans were are born with a moral conscience. Animals aren't...

P.S I am not judging anyone, just stateing the facts!

You are not stating "facts", you are stating generally what you have been told or what you've read which doesn't make it a fact. The animal kingdom and the whole planet has to do with God's creation, which I happen to think animals are a lot more aware of than we are. And nowhere is in a stated fact, nor is there any proof that animals don't have a conscience.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Garfee

 

I don't think you can honestly claim to be homosexual though because you've never tried it with a woman so for all you know you might not even be gay.

edit on 4-12-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Seriously...this thread has become a cattle call to the ignorant.

He is not really gay because he hasn't tried it with a woman?

And I suppose you are not really straight because you haven't "tried it" with another man yet?

Geez...what silly logic.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Indigo5

 

How on earth would you know what I have or haven't done?

Why on earth should I care?

I am straight and I have no intention of having sex with a member of the same sex to prove to myself that I am straight.

The idea that you would tell a gay man that he is not gay because he hasn't slept with a woman yet and that if he did he would "lust after them" is just ignorance. It is frankly funny.

reply to post by thebtheb


Actually this is what the bible says, so you are wrong!

All your offering is your fallible opinion, the scriptures are infallible.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Only according to those who choose to believe they are. The rest of us need not follow what we do not believe to be true.