Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
should same-sex couples be allowed to raise kids?
Topic Started: Jan 6 2007, 06:04 PM (1,034 Views)
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Humanity has passed through plenty of so-called slippery slopes without imploding on itself. Equality and social equity have never proven to be the slippery slopes to doom the obscurants said they were.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

BUT I think we should do a national plebiscite--the same as we're doing with same sex marriages--state by state, and see let the nation decide.

(I forget, how are those same sex marriages plebiscites working out. :D)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 01:15 PM
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

BUT I think we should do a national plebiscite--the same as we're doing with same sex marriages--state by state, and see let the nation decide.

(I forget, how are those same sex marriages plebiscites working out. :D)

Worldwide, there's a definite trend towards allowing gay marriage. The US is traditionally somewhat more socially conservative than much of the rest of the West, but I'm sure it'll catch on here eventually.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jan 7 2007, 02:18 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 01:15 PM
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

BUT I think we should do a national plebiscite--the same as we're doing with same sex marriages--state by state, and see let the nation decide.

(I forget, how are those same sex marriages plebiscites working out.  :D)

Worldwide, there's a definite trend towards allowing gay marriage. The US is traditionally somewhat more socially conservative than much of the rest of the West, but I'm sure it'll catch on here eventually.

OR maybe the world will catch up with the United States.

And John by "the world" you must be refering to Western Europe. There's a billion or so Muslems, a billion or so Chinese, a billion or so Hindu-Indians, all of South America, etc. that aren't part of your "world." :rolleyes:

Those billions do ad up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Daniel
Jan 7 2007, 11:08 AM
I'd like to say something about the slippery slope argument regarding same-sex marriage. It's based on the idea that only procreative sex acts are moral. What it's saying is that all other sex acts are not moral. If all other sex acts are not moral then there is no difference between two men having sex and men having sex with dogs and men having sex with children and men having sex with dead bodies etc. I've seen a lot of this type of argument from different sources. It is bigotry not to put too fine a point on it.

So you admit it's bigotry to deny a man's desire to have sex with a dog? :sombrero:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jan 7 2007, 03:07 PM
Daniel
Jan 7 2007, 11:08 AM
I'd like to say something about the slippery slope argument regarding same-sex marriage.  It's based on the idea that only procreative sex acts are moral.  What it's saying is that all other sex acts are not moral.  If all other sex acts are not moral then there is no difference between two men having sex and men having sex with dogs and men having sex with children and men having sex with dead bodies etc.  I've seen a lot of this type of argument from different sources.  It is bigotry not to put too fine a point on it.

So you admit it's bigotry to deny a man's desire to have sex with a dog? :sombrero:

And what about the North American Man Boy Love Assocoation?

(At least hetrosexual sexual predators don't have an association. :))
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmaestro007
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Axtremus
Jan 8 2007, 12:34 AM
mmmaestro007
Jan 7 2007, 04:30 AM
Axtremus
Jan 7 2007, 05:52 PM
Would it be alright if, say, a kid lost his biological parents and his grand-pa takes him in and raises him with his still-single uncle? No sex between the grand-pa and the uncle, just two men working together to raise a kid. Would you have a problem with that?

Would you have a problem with "two men raising a kid" if those two men weren't having sex with each other?

Or would you force the kid into a forster home or get another hetero-couple to adopt the kid?

no to all

So your objection is not with "two men raising a kid,"
but with "two men who have sex with each other raising a kid."

No if I take "raising a kid" out of the equation, do you object to "two men having sex with each other"?

no - not between consenting adults
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands, and all you can do is scratch it!"

Sir Thomas Beechem, conductor
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmaestro007
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Daniel
Jan 7 2007, 05:52 PM
What if one of the gay parents is the biological parent? Have you thought of that?

well, it's not an ideal situation for the kid but legally there's not a lot you could do about that
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable of giving pleasure to thousands, and all you can do is scratch it!"

Sir Thomas Beechem, conductor
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jan 7 2007, 09:52 AM
George K
Jan 7 2007, 11:25 AM
One of the arguments about same-sex parenting and gay marriage is that it's the beginning of a slippery slope. I'm not sure I buy into all that, but the fact that the Canadians say that "Johnny can have two mommies, and a daddy" opens another can of worms, no?

Yes. But I think ignoring the can of worm is even worse.

Or one can just say "no" to worms....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
But worms make life interesting. It would be awfully boring if we had a perfect world.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
okay, so I haven't read this entire thread, but I voted anyway.

Yes, if they are good people. (loving, honest, pay their bills, will care about education, etc. etc. etc.)

No, if they are bad people. (thieves, pedophiles, murderers, deadbeats, etc. etc. etc.)


added edit: okay, I've gone back and read the majority of this thread. For those of you who answered "no", what are you afraid of? That the kid will be dysfunctional? That the kid will turn out gay? Hell, kids can be raised by two supposed "normal" parents and turn out dysfunctional. And kids can be raised by to straight parents and turn out gay.

sheesh!

"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:15 AM
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

Old fashioned?

Gee let's bring back slavery then.

How it was yesterday is always better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Jan 7 2007, 04:14 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:15 AM
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

Old fashioned?

Gee let's bring back slavery then.

How it was yesterday is always better.

Kenny,
Your post made me think of the Geico caveman commercials. I wonder how the caveman would have answered.
"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:22 AM
OR maybe the world will catch up with the United States.


And John by "the world" you must be refering to Western Europe. There's a billion or so Muslems, a billion or so Chinese, a billion or so Hindu-Indians, all of South America, etc. that aren't part of your "world."

Those billions do ad up.

I didn't realize the Monroe Doctrine extended beyond the Western hemisphere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Jan 7 2007, 04:14 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:15 AM
I voted NO.

I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy.

Old fashioned?

Gee let's bring back slavery then.

How it was yesterday is always better.

kenny,

Bringing up slavery is very much akin to bringing up Hitler.

You kind of loose the argument when you do. ^_^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
AlbertaCrude
Jan 7 2007, 04:25 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:22 AM
OR maybe the world will catch up with the United States.


And John by "the world" you must be refering to Western Europe. There's a billion or so Muslems, a billion or so Chinese, a billion or so Hindu-Indians, all of South America, etc. that aren't part of your "world." 

Those billions do ad up.

I didn't realize the Monroe Doctrine extended beyond the Western hemisphere.

AC,

You will note I was commenting on John's take on what the "world" is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
You mean it's not exclusively the Land of the Free & Home of the Brave?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 04:05 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jan 7 2007, 04:25 PM
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 10:22 AM
OR maybe the world will catch up with the United States.


And John by "the world" you must be refering to Western Europe. There's a billion or so Muslems, a billion or so Chinese, a billion or so Hindu-Indians, all of South America, etc. that aren't part of your "world." 

Those billions do ad up.

I didn't realize the Monroe Doctrine extended beyond the Western hemisphere.

AC,

You will note I was commenting on John's take on what the "world" is.

The second half of my post referred to the Western world. Without wishing to sound too insular, I think the chances of me looking towards China, India and South America for guidance on my social or political behaviour are pretty slim. Others mileage may vary, of course, but I suspect I'm not alone in this regard.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 

The second half of my post referred to the Western world. Without wishing to sound too insular, I think the chances of me looking towards China, India and South America for guidance on my social or political behaviour are pretty slim. Others mileage may vary, of course, but I suspect I'm not alone in this regard.

Hmmm,

Well, NOW you say Western world. ^_^

But, I see world wide trend as cyclical--not linear. Things may get a lot more conservative in the future, too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
TomK
Jan 7 2007, 04:30 PM
Quote:
 

The second half of my post referred to the Western world. Without wishing to sound too insular, I think the chances of me looking towards China, India and South America for guidance on my social or political behaviour are pretty slim. Others mileage may vary, of course, but I suspect I'm not alone in this regard.

Hmmm,

Well, NOW you say Western world. ^_^

But, I see world wide trend as cyclical--not linear. Things may get a lot more conservative in the future, too.

Is the theory of cyclical social trends born out by history? In the 1960's, homosexuality was still illegal in the UK. Before that, women couldn't vote, and before that we still had slavery. I do hope we don't revert too far.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jan 7 2007, 06:13 PM

Is the theory of cyclical social trends born out by history?

DAAAAAaaaa.

Age of Percales>The age of Alexander. Roman Empire>Dark Ages. Enlightenment>Totalitarianism. Lazie Faire America>socialized America.

And it seems to be cycling downward. :(

We happen to be in something of a Dark Age now--hopefully thing will get better. :biggrin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jan 7 2007, 11:07 AM
Daniel
Jan 7 2007, 11:08 AM
I'd like to say something about the slippery slope argument regarding same-sex marriage.  It's based on the idea that only procreative sex acts are moral.  What it's saying is that all other sex acts are not moral.  If all other sex acts are not moral then there is no difference between two men having sex and men having sex with dogs and men having sex with children and men having sex with dead bodies etc.  I've seen a lot of this type of argument from different sources.  It is bigotry not to put too fine a point on it.

So you admit it's bigotry to deny a man's desire to have sex with a dog? :sombrero:

Human beings are not dogs, last time I checked.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

So?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I'm too tired to talk to you about this. Maybe some other time. :wave2:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4