Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow

not every couple wants to have children.

/edit

I really could care less if Suki or our son were gay. I just want them happy, healthy, educated and not in too much legal trouble =)

Edited, Apr 7th 2009 2:10pm by niobia

lolwut?

Are you saying that the gay couples will have sex with their children (exposing them to STDs), that children raised by gay couples will turn gay (exposing them to STDs) or that gay couples just have houses with STDs running around like stray kittens, looking to infect passing children?

Mine are named Itchy and Scratchy.

I'd rather have my child be happy and comfortable and confident in himself being who he is than see him live a lie trying to force himself to cater to some selfish desire of mine to continue my genetic line.

I've never allowed Hannah to entertain the notion that men would be a viable option for her. She's been an intended lesbian since birth. I've taken "ewww, boy germs!" to a whole new level.

Nexa

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I want my child to become whatever feels right to them. You know, because I'd be a damn good father.



Who says it's immoral? Oh right, the church. The religious folk think it's bad so we have to put our opinions and evidence aside so that we can give them what they want

Also, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is just terrile, wrong, and ignorant.



Exactly how, aside from force feeding the child their blood, or the homeosexual being a paedophile(which is probably about as likely as a heterosexual being a paedophile), would they transmit the std to the child?

Varus, as with most things that are against the bible, this is a matter of:

How does this affect you? How does the love that Bruce feels for Lance send YOU to "hell"? The plain and simple truth: It doesn't. All the christians out there need to just learn to let people be themselves and just rest easy with the thought that they'll be saved while the others aren't.

What about her right to a cozy home in Roslindale with her gently butch partner

Wow, it's like you know all of Nexa's Massachusetts friends!

That doesn't refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. It refers to (male) homosexual sex.

Um... That's a pretty irrelevant distinction. Male homosexuality is certainly a subset of "homosexual orientation as it's understood today", and thus it's incorrect to say that the bible doesn't refer to it at all. If you want to argue that the bible doesn't condemn everything associated with homosexual orientation today, that would be fine. But that's not what niobia said.


Oh. And if it makes you feel any better, hot steamy girl on girl action isn't explicitly addressed in the bible at all. So pics please... ;)



Look. Morality aside, the prohibition against homosexuality was pretty strictly about families and procreation (never seems to change, does it?). In those times, the tribe which was strict about ensuring that men married women and had lots of children would out grow the tribe that didn't, and would tend to take control of areas rather than being wiped out. It was a societal survival issue.

Today, the need to prevent homosexuality isn't so great. We're not in danger of being wiped out if a small percent fewer people get married and have children. That's why we don't put people to death for being gay either though, so let's not pretend that there's no change with the times going on here. And I'm not aware of any serious movement to adopt the death penalty for being gay anytime soon either.

The question which is relevant to marriage isn't whether it should be punished, but whether there's some societal benefit gained from homosexuality that justifies a societal reward. As I've stated in numerous threads in the past, I believe that opposite-sex couples entering into a state of marriage still provides a pretty measurable benefit to society as a whole which justifies the set of benefits and rewards society grants to those who marry. I do not believe that the same is true of same-sex couples.


The religious rules appeared for very practical reasons. While the specifics of those reasons have changed, it does not mean that we should stop making rules for practical reasons which apply to our own cultures. That's why I pointed out to niobia that the entire argument about why the religious opposition to homosexuality is "wrong" is really irrelevant. It doesn't touch on the issues today at all.

Edited, Apr 8th 2009 6:17pm by gbaji

Did you know that cat hair doesn't provoke allergic reactions? It's actually the dander that causes the allergies!

There, my post is now as relevant as yours.