What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Married? Again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: Married? Again?

What's next? Marriages to giant feet?!

AlBundy.jpg
 
Re: Married? Again?

ericredaxe said:
Gov Christie to sign a ban on "gay conversion therapy"... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-gay-conversion-therapy-for-minors/?hpt=hp_t2

I wonder how that will play with the southern end of the republican party come primary time.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm - I was prepared to be all against this, but you left out a key word - the ban is only on gay conversion therapy for MINORS. That, I'm okay with, because the implication is that the parents are forcing it on the child, and the state does have a compelling interest in the child's welfare. If an *adult* freely decides to pay someone to try to change his sexuality - well, fine, have a ball, but shame on the snake-oil salesman who accepts his money. If anything that would just be a matter for the FTC - to watch out for false advertising.
 
Re: Married? Again?

This exchange happend right at the end of the old thread, and the only responses before the end of the thread were funny ones from Pricelss and Scooby. I didn't want to let the anti-gay marriage crowd be saved by the bell:

Bob Gray said:
There's a lot of assumptions and beliefs that go into either viewpoint. For example, I believe that inherently there is a value in a father and mother that isn't the same when you don't have a father and a mother in a set of parents.

And to give the standard caveat, yes, some sets of male and female parents don't do a very good job. Believe me, I'm very well aware of that. But that doesn't mean the general principle doesn't stand.
Click to expand...

LynahFan said:
I can understand this point of view. I can even appreciate that there's real value for kids growing up with both good male and good female role models, and maybe in an ideal world, every child would grow up in a family with opposite gendered parents.

However, we don't get to live in that world. We live in the world where lots and lots of people are gay, and lots of those gay people have kids. With those as indisputable facts, we really only have choices that fall somewhere between these two extremes:

A) Allow those gay people to form families that are functionally and legally equivalent to straight families in every way
B) Ensure that every child of a gay person grows up with a single parent

Even if you feel that choice A is inferior to having kids grow up with a mother and a father, how can it not be the NEXT best thing, and far superior to choice B?
Click to expand...

Any thoughts?
 
Re: Married? Again?

LynahFan said:
Hmmmm - I was prepared to be all against this, but you left out a key word - the ban is only on gay conversion therapy for MINORS. That, I'm okay with, because the implication is that the parents are forcing it on the child, and the state does have a compelling interest in the child's welfare. If an *adult* freely decides to pay someone to try to change his sexuality - well, fine, have a ball, but shame on the snake-oil salesman who accepts his money. If anything that would just be a matter for the FTC - to watch out for false advertising.
Click to expand...

Good point... I'll make the edit. And I agree that is a big distinction.
 
Re: Married? Again?

LynahFan said:
This exchange happend right at the end of the old thread, and the only responses before the end of the thread were funny ones from Pricelss and Scooby. I didn't want to let the anti-gay marriage crowd be saved by the bell:





Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Honestly I'm not sure there is any inherent value in a father / mother parenting combo as compared to a gay couple. I think people will either be good parents or not and their gender / sexual orientation has little to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?

ericredaxe said:
Honestly I'm not sure there is any inherent value in a father / mother parenting combo as compared to a gay couple. I think people will either be good parents or not and their gender / sexual orientation has little to do with that.
Click to expand...
There isn't any inherent value that puts it above the other.

Because this is a nice ***** slap to people like bob.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZyAueltLsa4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: Married? Again?

When Franken was running, I was vehemently opposed to him. I hated the idea that he could represent me. Based on everything I've seen from him and heard about him, I'm going to have little reason to vote against him in his upcoming election. He's been called the hardest working Senator and it seems like he actually puts in the effort. He's really come down on the libertarian side of things for a number of issues. SOPA, gay marriage, drones, Snowden, etc.

I don't like everything he supports by any means, but he's definitely earned my respect. That video is just another reason why I am starting to like him so much.
 
Re: Married? Again?

ericredaxe said:
Honestly I'm not sure there is any inherent value in a father / mother parenting combo as compared to a gay couple. I think people will either be good parents or not and their gender / sexual orientation has little to do with that.
Click to expand...
Oh, I 100% agree with you, no question. My point is that even for people who do think that father/mother is better than father/father or mother/mother, I don't understand why they would also think that solo father or solo mother is still better than f/f or m/m.
 
Re: Married? Again?

LynahFan said:
Oh, I 100% agree with you, no question. My point is that even for people who do think that father/mother is better than father/father or mother/mother, I don't understand why they would also think that solo father or solo mother is still better than f/f or m/m.
Click to expand...

Leviticus.
 
Re: Married? Again?

LynahFan said:
I didn't want to let the anti-gay marriage crowd be saved by the bell.
Click to expand...

So one person is a crowd now? ;) My sense is that the majority is neither pro-gay marriage nor anti-gay marriage. I'm not "in favor" of it and I'm not "opposed" to it either. Marriage and the family have far bigger problems to deal with than this particular issue.
 
Re: Married? Again?

FreshFish said:
So one person is a crowd now? ;) My sense is that the majority is neither pro-gay marriage nor anti-gay marriage. I'm not "in favor" of it and I'm not "opposed" to it either. Marriage and the family have far bigger problems to deal with than this particular issue.
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I'm right there with you. Not against it, not going to argue for it. We have much more important things to deal with right now.
 
Re: Married? Again?

For those who have argued that allowing same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, how do you respond to pedophiles who claim that they too should be entitled to civil rights to practice their beliefs?

I have a response to that, but how do you respond to them in a logically-consistent manner when you've staked out your own position on civil rights grounds?
 
Re: Married? Again?

FreshFish said:
For those who have argued that allowing same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, how do you respond to pedophiles who claim that they too should be entitled to civil rights to practice their beliefs?

I have a response to that, but how do you respond to them in a logically-consistent manner when you've staked out your own position on civil rights grounds?
Click to expand...
Because one party is below the "age of consent" (which varies by state)??

On the same note, does a brother have the same right to marry his sister (or brother)? If they love each other, by the same standards currently employed, why not?
If Bob, Carol, Ted, & Alice all want to marry each other, why not - as long as they love each other?

Yes, I am one of the slippery slope folks.
 
FreshFish said:
For those who have argued that allowing same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue, how do you respond to pedophiles who claim that they too should be entitled to civil rights to practice their beliefs?

I have a response to that, but how do you respond to them in a logically-consistent manner when you've staked out your own position on civil rights grounds?
Click to expand...

Children cannot legally consent. To practice their beliefs requires them to commit an illegal act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top