Explain how I do this? Recognising and addressing privilege is not prejudice and discrimination.
Gay People Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Edrof
- Start date
- Status
Explain how I do this? Recognising and addressing privilege is not prejudice and discrimination.
And you don't recognise and address privilege. All you do is treat people as being wholly defined by their sex, skin colour and sexual orientation (and maybe other things as well - I don't know exactly how broad your prejudices are) and advocate prejudice and discrimination on that basis. So you are doubly prejudiced on every basis - once for treating the various mostly irrelevant biological characteristics as being the defining feature of everyone and once for advocating discrimination on that basis.
Your talk of privilege is an excuse, a political tool. It's not a reason.
I would.
Two men could quite happily raise a child. Just like a single dad or single mum could happily raise a child. But broken families affect children as they grow up not having either the father figure in their life or the caring Mother there.
Men and Women provide different roles in emotional and physical support in raising children - sure the other partner can do it, But there are obvious things that women are better than men at, and things men are better than women at. We as Men could try and masquerade and act the part, but it will never be the same and likewise vice-versa.
Not being sexist, its just fact, we're different and have different roles. And if you force a child into a situation where they have two of the same gender raising them, you effectively are missing half of what was originally intended.
You may think I'm spouting rubbish but I would go as far to say as having a gay couple adopting children is practically the same as having a single father / mother as your guardian.
Would you rather have two males/two females raise a kid than just one male/female?
Pertinent question.
Overall I would prefer a Father and Mother together, but if I have to choose then I would prefer either a single mother/father than a Homesexual marriage parenting a child
I am kinda busy but all the science shows you are wrong.
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...les Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf
So, despite being at a disadvantage, gay parents produce children just as well as straight parents, and better than single parents.
If you are against gay people raising kids, especially when there are so many kids looking for foster parents, you are just a disgusting homophobe who can't do basic research or refuses to.
Nope. I have simply used it to show how little people can understand things, such as the guy in this thread who didn't understand how homophobic language was a problem and people should "man up".
No, religion is irrational. Marriage being a religious thing, by definition, it too is irrational.
Uh, what is wrong with you? Report me for disagreeing with you? Are you high?
Read what you posted, marriage has rights and responsibilities. So heterosexual people are entitled to these rights and responsibilities, but homosexual people are at the mercy of the state to pontificate and decide what is morally acceptable for society?
The technicality of how law is made by the state is not being debated, this isn't Pol 101. For the state to have the audacity to decide what is moral in this instance, is.
Aside from the research mentioned by other posters, a stable and loving home is the ideal environment for children. I don't care if one parent is the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and the other is a plant pot. If they can provide a nurturing, loving home then they have my support.
Has anyone ever thought that the most important person that they could hurt is God Himself?. God was here long before any institutions were set up by imperfect men, God created one man and one woman, they became one and in unity, this, in my honest opinion, was the first marriage, He, God founded marriage and only between one man and one woman, the first marriage was an institution set up by God, and i repeat only between one man and one woman. Human beings can only come from a man and a woman and science supports this as a fact. God and His Son Jesus Christ and all Good angels and many human beings on earth today and the Holy Bible condemn homosexuality, it is also a sin for heterosexuals (man+woman) to have intercourse outside of marriage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Ah Kedge. I love you, you crazy watch tower reading deluded zealot you. *head knuckles*
Amen,
Good ted talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_solomon_love_no_matter_what.html
Amen,
Good ted talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_solomon_love_no_matter_what.html
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
ask me about forcing my religious beliefs down your throat!
No. I imagine you're now going to dress your opinion up as fact.
At least you didn't disappoint
No. I imagine you're now going to dress your opinion up as fact.
At least you didn't disappoint
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Agreed 100%. Plus it would be awesome to have Mr. Stay Puffed as your dad. Not sure about having a plant pot as the other parent though...
Glad to hear it. I guess you cherry pick the bible then ? Leviticus 20:13 you obviously have the good sense to ignore, Maybe you can be persuaded to ignore a bit more ?
Just messing with you !
Glad to hear it. I guess you cherry pick the bible then ? Leviticus 20:13 you obviously have the good sense to ignore, Maybe you can be persuaded to ignore a bit more ?
Just messing with you !
Jesus had every right under the Levitical Law to stone the woman caught in adultery to death, but he didn't, he chose to value the life of the person, showing love and compassion. If that's God's heart then it should be mine too.
Jesus is the principle of how a Christian should live, so I'm not going to go around shouting that every gay person should be killed, instead I'm going to try and value the person.
I don't ignore and part of the Bible, I do my best to take it all in context and see Jesus as the final authority on how I should live.
People have made the Church into an organisation of dogma, instead of the the relationship of love and cooperation between God and Man, which it is supposed to be.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It may be unintentional but let's not start associating gay couples with being a "broken family" - it can be a perfectly loving and stable family unit. As far as I'm aware the stability and love that the child receives is of much more importance in their development than whether they're being raised by someone with an XX chromosome and someone with an XY chromosome.
You're taking a generally held assumption (that each gender has roles they are better at) and presenting it as true in all cases. I've certainly met some people who do not conform to gender stereotypes and it may well be that much of what we do in raising children is learned behaviour anyway.
Is there a threshold amount where people carrying out gender roles as you see them is acceptable? e.g. if a mother shows only say 80% of the motherly qualities and the father shows 90% of the fatherly qualities you expect then their progeny are only receiving 85% of the "whole family unit" quotient from the assigned role providers. Does the remaining 15% get made up by others or do the parents pick up the "slack" from each other and do what is necessary or does this particular child just miss out on those parts that the parents can't provide from their allotted roles?
What about situations where both parents work full time and use a nanny/au pere/childminder? Should they be denied children because they're not going to be around most of the time and will be leaving much of the raising of their child to the person they've hired to look after their child?
From my point of view if there's not enough suitable heterosexual couples who are willing and able to adopt but there are homosexual couples who wish to adopt (or single parents) and they are assessed as suitable then go for it. I'd rather children are raised in a loving family environment (however it is constituted) than raised in the care of the state. The basic point being that there are lots of situations where the "traditional" family unit doesn't function in the same way as you envisage it but most of the time people do what they can to muddle through - it may not always be ideal but if you're always waiting for the ideal to happen then you're probably not going to have much happen at all.
I've thought about it but surely an omnipotent and omniscient deity wouldn't be unable to deal with the consequences of giving people free will?
Jesus had every right under the Levitical Law to stone the woman caught in adultery to death, but he didn't, he chose to value the life of the person, showing love and compassion. If that's God's heart then it should be mine too.
Jesus is the principle of how a Christian should live, so I'm not going to go around shouting that every gay person should be killed, instead I'm going to try and value the person.
I don't ignore and part of the Bible, I do my best to take it all in context and see Jesus as the final authority on how I should live.
People have made the Church into an organisation of dogma, instead of the the relationship of love and cooperation between God and Man, which it is supposed to be.
Squark, I could talk all day about where your bible knowledge has failed you in that above post. It would derail this topic though. So I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you.
What I will say is, please go and read Leviticus 20:13. It's specifically relevant to this little discussion because it makes specific reference to homosexuality, which seems to be the topic here. You however seem to be referring to Leviticus 20:10, which I never even quoted in my original post to you.
An atheist schooling a Christian on what the bible says. Imagine that huh ?
- Status