General

[quote=Ezperanza11]Yay! That's great! I hope for those influences to spread in all of America. <3 I dont have an issue with gays. I'm glad, since a friend of mine had also told me they are allowing for gays to enter the Boy Scouts since they weren't able to before. It's good two gay people get married, and I don't understand what the issue with adoption is. Like someone else said, these children are looking for homes. Heterosexual couples are able to reproduce in most cases. So they often don't have any reason to adopt since they can have their own children. So homosexuals get married. What next? Like most married couples I'm pretty sure they too would like a family. So why take that right away from them to have a family? All that matters is that the children have parents. Whether it be two mothers, two fathers. It's not like they will mold their child into a homosexual. They aren't going to brain wash them. I think they have the capabilities to raise a child right, and in a way in which it will not effect the child's sexuality. It's good. If anything, allowing homosexuals to adopt will increase adoption rates.

On another arguement, like another person stated. Why hate gay people? It's not like they do anything to you, right? (Unless, someone has, I apologize) So what other reason to hate them? Just because a lot of society looks down on them as the "abnormal ones". All society does is look down on subculture groups that don't follow "the norm" of our society. If its not the norm, then it gets looked down. People say marriage is between man and woman. Cause it's tradition. It's normal. I don't think people should have the right to take away the right of bonding two people who love eachother. Like, if it was you, and you loved someone dearly, what if someone just took it from you? Also another reason is religion. In the U.S. it's a constant arguement whether to outlaw Same sex marriage. Why else would the government have such a reason besides religious reasons? Separation of church and state, not cool. If its just for discrimination, then that's even worse. basing laws on personal opinions... no. If they outlaw same sex marriage because of religious beliefs next thing you know using gods name in vain will be against the law. Smh.

Sociology 101[/quote]

Nobodies taking away someone's right to love someone. They just believe that the sanctity of marriage involves one man and one woman.

@primalfurey Pretty sure Dimo was being serious. I would agree with him, religious [b]ideologies[/b] have done absolutely nothing to further the progress of mankind. And actually the most religious cultures in the world are the cultures that are less developed, there is a direct correlation between secularism and scientific thinking and societal progress.

[quote=Pendant]One of the rather witty comments that no one will appreciate.[/quote]

It got 15 likes, I'm pretty sure it was appreciated.

[quote=Echleon]@lolmiggy: Meant to reply that to someone else calm down.

And by the way, trying to use 'big' words and make it seem like you have an expansive vocabulary doesn't help you in arguments, especially since your posts have no fluidity.[/quote]

I don't think "fluidity" is really necessary either...

@Ezperanza11: Once again, I was not talking to you, and you do not seem to understand my point. Anyone would rather have a loving mom and a loving dad rather than two loving dads, even if they are "okay" with having two dads. For example, if you like brownies more than cookies, but someone asks you if you would like a cookie, you would rather them ask you if you wanted a brownie, even if you are okay with eating a cookie.

[quote=xbanxditx]@Ezperanza11: I don't know who you are but I wasn't talking to you. And what I'm trying to say is that it's human nature to cover something up when you try to prove a point.[/quote]

It doesnt matter if you were talking to me or not. I obviously dont care, since people seem to be dropping into eachothers convos why cant i? Sure it may be human nature. But you'll never get "the true answer you want" out of him (if there even is one). He says that he's telling the truth. And like I said, you can never tell if someone is living or speaking the truth for that matter. Especially over the Internet. You don't know who this guy is. Can you be one to say that "No, I KNOW you won't be okay with two dads even if you say you are! Just admit it you won't!" ? What if he really is fine with it and You're just pushing him to not tell the truth that you want, but to tell a lie just because you want him to say a certain thing really badly? There's no point in pushing him to say something that he may never say.

Took them long enough

@Ezperanza11: I don't know who you are but I wasn't talking to you. And what I'm trying to say is that it's human nature to cover something up when you try to prove a point.

It's stupid society's fault for shaping the whole cultural aspect that being gay is an extreme concept. Studies even show that a gay couple would have the same problems just like an average heterosexual couple.

[quote=Echleon]@lolmiggy: Meant to reply that to someone else calm down.

And by the way, trying to use 'big' words and make it seem like you have an expansive vocabulary doesn't help you in arguments, especially since your posts have no fluidity.[/quote]

I've never tried used any big words (and I don't think I ended up doing so either). Look at the rate at which I'm replying to people. I'm not setting aside time to be fancy. Whatever I've said has been in my first going unless I added an actual idea.

Edit: ^Haha. "Tried used". I'm really not editing, other than now to just make the point.

I'd love to know how my posts "have no fluidity", though.

@lolmiggy: Meant to reply that to someone else calm down.

And by the way, trying to use 'big' words and make it seem like you have an expansive vocabulary doesn't help you in arguments, especially since your posts have no fluidity.

[quote=FriedSnake]Is @lolmiggy the new @Snovvy now?[/quote]

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever agreed with him on anything other than the atheism position. And well, I've barraged just one thread. Be delicate.

Is @lolmiggy the new @Snovvy now?

EDIT: Wrong person.

[quote=LightIIStruck]@lolmiggy: Ah alright, I thought your stance was that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt. I've have read several articles and many children of same-sex parents seem to thrive. Although I can't really link you to any reports or journals, I'm way too lazy. There may or may not be a correlation in terms of same-sex marriage and the child's success, I'm not knowledgeable in those terms. Although, from what I have read, there seems to be a positive correlation between same-sex parents and their children. Either way, as long as same-sex couples are in stable mental, economic, physical, and emotional standing/health, and deemed fit to adopt a child, then they should be allowed to, and I think we agree in those terms.[/quote]

Good. Glad we could reach some middle ground. Have a nice one.

La la la. Post got erased when I hit the back button.

[quote=LightIIStruck]Glad we're going back on topic.[/quote]

Of course. I'm glad we can actually have a discussion while keeping emotions set aside.

[quote=LightIIStruck]Is it right to prohibit adoption by same-sex couples based on the perceived social harassment that may occur? Who is this benefiting? Will the child benefit in the long-run by remaining an orphan at the risk of social harassment that should not occur in the first place? Is adoption by a heterosexual couple later on guaranteed? Does the social benefit of having a family outweigh the potential of being harassed?[/quote]

The decision to have a child is ultimately selfish and I'd have to ask you whether or not a couple should be responsible before opting for them. If you say yes, then I would say the responsibilities should culminate in having a child with as few trajectories as possible toward disadvantages (which is why people like welfare monkeys are frowned upon for having more and more). Should they be denied based on just the harassment? I never said so, just that it's something to be considered (and following my line of logic here, it would be a disadvantage) and that even if they could adopt in spite of that, it still shouldn't be used as a means to decrease stigma.

My worry isn't just the harassment, though, as I have just said. Parental-child studies relating to percentages of children who end up as runaways, exhibiting behavioral disorders, dropouts in schools, juvenile/prison inmates and likelihood of suicide, becoming teenaged parents, committing assaults and other impairments for same-sex couples need to be juxtaposed with that of different sex ones to give us a better understanding of how they'll turn out. It's a pretty loaded question asking if they should downright be prohibited but in conjunction with many of the factors I've brought up, there might be a more solid understanding to answer "Should a different sex couple be given preference over a same sex one?" Again, I'm not saying it's just the harassment. I just think that's one of the salient things to consider in conjunction with many others. You know, like how there are studies with single parent vs. two parent households which lets us pretty sufficiently answer which should be given priority.

[quote=Ponified]And all I'm saying is your "personal preference" is stupid and ignorant. If you want to make a post like that don't expect people not to say anything against it. Also you haven't disproved any of my points, seems like you're the one making the strawman arguments here.[/quote]

You're a parrot with all your buzzwords. My personal preference considers the social lives of children as one of the contributing factors to the final decision and I'm not shoving it down anyone's throat that it should be the main one. There's nothing to disprove of yours because after all of these posts, your critical faculties are too bereft to compartmentalize your emotions. A pregnant woman would probably be more level-headed than you.

I don't expect people not to say anything against it; it would just help if they were like @LightIIStruck - who disagrees with me - and had something called an attention span.

[quote=Ponified] Technically black people aren't natural because of their skin. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to get married either?[/quote]

Wouldn't white skin be more "unnatural" since it arose from a genetic mutation?

opinions mean nothing anymore.

[quote=LightIIStruck]3. Yeah okay, norm requires a comparison, I changed my narrative to acceptance, the argument still stands.[/quote]

Let's see:

[quote=LightIIStruck]1. Alright all sorts of stigma will exist, but the objective is to decrease said stigma. Decreased stigma is better than the initial stigma.[/quote]

1. It would be at the expense of a child's social life without having formulated a clear vision for how tangibly long it would even take.
1a. Even if we skipped "how long" it would take as aforementioned, we don't know how much it would decrease by. Is it better overall? Sure. Is it better for the actual child? You don't really have a say in that. Even if you decrease it, there's no way of knowing how overwhelming it'll be.

I move that steps should be taken to actually weather it without children before considering them. They shouldn't be the means to the end.

[quote=LightIIStruck]2. Some things are stigmatized even though they are popular? If there is a political shift, that means that a majority of the represented and elected politicians have less stigma towards an issue.[/quote]

Yes, this addresses decreasing vs. disappearing which you already admittedly changed, so don't worry about it.

And I really hate it. Some dudes be like "yea I'm okay with gays" only because girl on girl action. But when it's two guys it's an immediate nono for them. >.< Also not cool.

[quote=LightIIStruck]@lolmiggy: Is a norm something usual, typical, or standard? Yes, I am using that term generally. Will same-sex families be tolerable/acceptable, and become the non-issue it actually is? Yes, that's what I meant. It does not have to level with the number heteronormative families. Of course there can be discrimination towards minority groups, but said stigma will definitely decrease. Once people are exposed to an idea, they tend to be more comfortable with it. What stigmatized things have been increasing in number? The usage of marijuana? Nah, just got legalized in two states. Gay marriage? Nah, legalized in the UK and several states. I'll need some examples.[/quote]

No, you're using the term incorrectly and I'll happily tell you why using your own definition: "usual, typical, standard". It doesn't matter how generally you say you're using it, because all three of those words require comparisons in magnitude to establish. You're liberating it by bundling it with acceptance which is a non-factor for anything other than stigmatization. By the way, good news for you: not everything has to increase in rate (and/or number) of usage or production for it to be tolerated, accepted, whatever, like the marijuana you brought up. Just facts will be enough for the latter -- at least from the way trends are going. About wanting some examples, the one you supplied was perfectly fine; you were just wrong about the conclusion therein. Let's take weed. It's increasing in number and it still bears stigma from soccer moms everywhere (half-serious). You missed my point - decreasing stigma is still stigma. I was arguing that it wouldn't disappear. You're changing your narrative now, too, from "disappearing" to "definitely decreasing".

[quote=Ponified]Lol, and what point have you ever made? You're saying they shouldn't be able to adopt because other kids will victimize them? That's not enough of a reason to disallow people from having children. The world doesn't work like that. Also no I'm not arguing out of pity, only logic which you seem to lack.[/quote]

If you were a fan of logic, you wouldn't be using strawman arguments in succession. I never make a prescriptive statement using "should", so I'm not arguing in favour of it solely being enough of a reason. I'm just saying that something directly affecting a kid's social life is something to be considered in the totality of the decision.

Go build on a value for reading comprehension before representing a fringe group; if they're already stigmatized, they don't need people who can only engage in a level of discourse fit for baby wading pools speaking for them.

i dont see why or how people can be so mad about gay marriage.
like whats the worst you can see two dudes making out?
who cares.

UK has it, but California doesn't >.<
Gay Marriage would have been legal in California if it wasn't for the Terminator that keeps on vetoing it

@primalfurey:

Why would you consider that? What was erroneous with my statement?

@LightIIStruck: Actually it's not a very surprising thing when people lie to prove their arguments...

[quote=xbanxditx]I'm not saying I have a problem with you being okay about having two dads, but rather that you're not telling the whole truth.
Hm... Resorting to insults I see.[/quote]

Lol what if he is telling the truth? He is right. Homophobia is taught. How can you for sure say that you really know if he's saying the whole truth or not? Or do you just want him to say what you want him to say. "No, I wouldn't be okay with two dads"? Right? That's it? You have no idea who this guy is, obviously he doesn't have an issue so leave it at that o.o

[quote=yesno]people like you are the reason why this world is falling. just because your eyes are closed does not mean you should approve anything that comes to you.

if you don't know anything, step aside.[/quote]

i guess being useful to the community is a bad thing

[quote=LightIIStruck]If you have a problem with it, you might be homophobic.[/quote]

I'm not saying I have a problem with you being okay about having two dads, but rather that you're not telling the whole truth.
Hm... Resorting to insults I see.

Yay! That's great! I hope for those influences to spread in all of America. <3 I dont have an issue with gays. I'm glad, since a friend of mine had also told me they are allowing for gays to enter the Boy Scouts since they weren't able to before. It's good two gay people get married, and I don't understand what the issue with adoption is. Like someone else said, these children are looking for homes. Heterosexual couples are able to reproduce in most cases. So they often don't have any reason to adopt since they can have their own children. So homosexuals get married. What next? Like most married couples I'm pretty sure they too would like a family. So why take that right away from them to have a family? All that matters is that the children have parents. Whether it be two mothers, two fathers. It's not like they will mold their child into a homosexual. They aren't going to brain wash them. I think they have the capabilities to raise a child right, and in a way in which it will not effect the child's sexuality. It's good. If anything, allowing homosexuals to adopt will increase adoption rates.

On another arguement, like another person stated. Why hate gay people? It's not like they do anything to you, right? (Unless, someone has, I apologize) So what other reason to hate them? Just because a lot of society looks down on them as the "abnormal ones". All society does is look down on subculture groups that don't follow "the norm" of our society. If its not the norm, then it gets looked down. People say marriage is between man and woman. Cause it's tradition. It's normal. I don't think people should have the right to take away the right of bonding two people who love eachother. Like, if it was you, and you loved someone dearly, what if someone just took it from you? Also another reason is religion. In the U.S. it's a constant arguement whether to outlaw Same sex marriage. Why else would the government have such a reason besides religious reasons? Separation of church and state, not cool. If its just for discrimination, then that's even worse. basing laws on personal opinions... no. If they outlaw same sex marriage because of religious beliefs next thing you know using gods name in vain will be against the law. Smh.

Sociology 101

[quote=LightIIStruck]@xbanxditx: I would be completely okay. Others may not, but that should not prevent two loving people from having a family together. Since when did others have the right to determine who deserves a family and who does not?[/quote]

Hm... You say you would be completely okay, but it is that really the truth? Or are you just trying to prove a point here? It's human nature, I'm not trying to look down on you, but I doubt that you would be completely okay.

[quote=yesno]people like you are the reason why this world is falling. just because your eyes are closed does not mean you should approve anything that comes to you.

if you don't know anything, step aside.[/quote]

Right, because religious ideologies have helped progress this world we live in. Pot meet kettle.

@LightIIStruck: How is my argument invalid? Would you be completely ok if you had two dads? Are you saying that people are not bound to make fun of people with two dads? Therefore, my argument is valid.

[quote=xbanxditx]I'd have to agree with this. I'm almost positive that no-one would like to have two dads or that anyone will be able to bare society if their guardians were gay. And for the people saying it's better to have two dads than no parents, it's not necessary that that couple has to take that child in or nobody else will, if you know what I mean. For example, if a gay couple doesn't adopt a baby, it's not like that baby won't have any parents (in most cases), they will just be available to another couple.[/quote]

This really depends on where you reside. Obviously if you live in the bible belt you are going to have a bad time. I know of 3 same sex couples with children who could not be prouder of their parents (residing in Australia).

[quote=xbanxditx]I'd have to agree with this. I'm almost positive that no-one would like to have two dads or that anyone will be able to bare society if their guardians were gay. And for the people saying it's better to have two dads than no parents, it's not necessary that that couple has to take that child in or nobody else will, if you know what I mean. For example, if a gay couple doesn't adopt a baby, it's not like that baby won't have any parents (in most cases), they will just be available to another couple.[/quote]

It's not like all orphans get adopted though. It wouldn't hurt for people to adopt more.

[quote=xbanxditx]I'd have to agree with this. I'm almost positive that no-one would like to have two dads or that anyone will be able to bare society if their guardians were gay. And for the people saying it's better to have two dads than no parents, it's not necessary that that couple has to take that child in or nobody else will, if you know what I mean. For example, if a gay couple doesn't adopt a baby, it's not like that baby won't have any parents (in most cases), they will just be available to another couple.[/quote]

Having black parents was seen as something bad in the past as well but now I don't think it's much of an issue. Humanity will go on and learn to live with the fact that having 2 dads or 2 moms is something that shouldn't be seen as negative. If they love their children then there isn't anything wrong with that.

[quote=lolmiggy]I agree. Sapience tends to set in for discerning values at later ages, though. Not sure an infant would really understand.

It's clear that they're getting more platforms (and by extension, voices). Perception? Sure. Is it potent enough to make the stigma disappear? You'd have to support that; debatable. Calling the stigma "ignorant"? Just a buzzword unless you address all facets of the stigma's constituents.

I don't care for it so much as recognizing its existence and dominance and recognizing that same dominance will proportionately affect the social lives of children. Your preferences, your bodies, your life until you decide to bring a kid with no actual say into it.[/quote]

I'd have to agree with this. I'm almost positive that no-one would like to have two dads or that anyone will be able to bare society if their guardians were gay. And for the people saying it's better to have two dads than no parents, it's not necessary that that couple has to take that child in or nobody else will, if you know what I mean. For example, if a gay couple doesn't adopt a baby, it's not like that baby won't have any parents (in most cases), they will just be available to another couple.

I don't see what is wrong with gay marriage. As long as they contribute positively to the community I don't see why we shouldn't let them be happy.

[quote=LightIIStruck]@lolmiggy: Not really interested in addressing all of the "facet's of the stigma's constituents". Sorry. There aren't many arguments to support the prohibition of gay couples adopting children when the only alternative is to remain an orphan, other than "their social lives will be affected".[/quote]

You're making a silly conflation. I responded to you with the facets on the heels of your mention about the LGBT perception. You'd be crazy to think I'm saying the adoption issue holds the entire weight factor for the stigma.

[quote=Ponified]I didn't address that because whenever I do it's usually pointless. Me telling you being gay isn't a choice probably isn't going to do anything as people like you are too thickskulled to realize it's not.[/quote]

You're too busy in projecting victimization to realize I'm not condemning anyone for what they do amongst their own consent and your strawman argument about my stance on its nature vs. nurture doesn't hold. I'm just addressing the kids, but keep making excuses for beating around the bush along with your kneejerk reactions.

[quote=yesno]@dimo: i always hear these words when i speak my mind.

whats wrong ? is it too hard to believe that anti-gay people exist ?
its funny how it used to be weird being gay, now its weird for not being gay/approving them.[/quote]

I was not referring to your personal views, but the fact that you're disappointed that politicians did no vote based on their religious agenda.

[quote=LightIIStruck]If the child has no problem with having two fathers/mothers, then it should not be an issue.[/quote]

I agree. Sapience tends to set in for discerning values at later ages, though. Not sure an infant would really understand.

[quote=LightIIStruck]It is clear that there is a societal shift in how LGBT is perceived, and over time the ignorant stigma will disappear.[/quote]

It's clear that they're getting more platforms (and by extension, voices). Perception? Sure. Is it potent enough to make the stigma disappear? You'd have to support that; debatable. Calling the stigma "ignorant"? Just a buzzword unless you address all facets of the stigma's constituents.

[quote=Excelion]I see you like heteronormativity.[/quote]

I don't care for it so much as recognizing its existence and dominance and recognizing that same dominance will proportionately affect the social lives of children. Your preferences, your bodies, your life until you decide to bring a kid with no actual say into it.

[quote=yesno]@dimo: blah. im sure the people who voted for them ( which is more likely muslims ) are disappointed. they reached these seat by muslims who want to have a stronger voice in uk. not to approve the devil.[/quote]

Not sure if you're being serious here.

[quote=lolmiggy]The only bad thing about gay marriage isn't something in and of itself.

I just don't want the recognition of that right to overstep its bounds and grant gays the ability to adopt children. Not really fair for them to bear the stigma through their guardians' (wouldn't call them parents) preferences and no choice of their own.

If they keep their lifestyle to themselves, go for it. Have fun.[/quote]

I see you like heteronormativity.

Isn't the only reason gays are portrayed the way they are because of the Bible and how it says they should be looked down upon? (I'm not a Christian, but from what I've seen, this seems to be the reason behind why they are shown no respect). Prepare for a flamewar people

OT: I'm glad the UK has passed this law. It shows that we have moved on from the past.

[quote=Ponified]Actually gay people can already adopt children, and I'm willing to bet they'd make much better parents then you ever will.[/quote]

Oh, that's too bad from my point of view. I'm sure they would as I don't ever want children, but if I chose to have them, I wouldn't consciously disadvantage them because of my own preferences -- not that you bothered addressing that instead of making a vacuous remark.

[quote=yesno]"As an interesting aside, all 6 Muslim MPs voted in favour of the bill."

dear god .. betrayals ![/quote]

It's actually a great example of the requirement for UK MPs to not use their religious ideologies in judgement towards the state. if only other countries could follow such shinning examples.

[quote=xdwow]@lolmiggy, circular logic or not, this is simply how I see it.[/quote]

Whether it's "simply how you see it" or not, it's still fallacious reasoning and you'd do well to present your convictions and principles in better lights so that they're not so easy to pick away at. I (fundamentally) agree with you but wouldn't word it so poorly; I see nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself.

Literally all I said was that when you say "general view of society", it means the exact same as "people (therein) tend to..." and that it adds nothing.

@lolmiggy, circular logic or not, this is simply how I see it. I seen gay couples before and I honestly do not see what's wrong with them. Maybe it's weird that you see two people of the same gender holding hands, or kissing, but how can you hate them when they aren't even doing it to you?

[quote=Segumisama]We can only hope more countries will follow in their example.[/quote]

testify gurl

Dunno why it took this long for them to realise that this is the right way, what with everyone droning on and on about its legalisation, but with the UK voting in its favour, I'm sure many more countries will as well.

[quote=xdwow]People tend[/quote]
[quote=xdwow]because it's the general view of society[/quote]
This is circular logic. You didn't add anything to what you began with; you essentially said "people are this way" twice. Just saying.

We can only hope more countries will follow in their example.