pig

infinite, first i'd like to thank you for your responses. i think that this type of response is potentially more useful for discussion, that a discussion of rights versus privelages or the definition of bigotry at this point; partially because i think that's been pretty well covered.

I guess what I didn't understand is that on one hand, you stated that you didn't see them as the same, but then you seemed to repeat the phrase again with slight rewording as if that would clear anything up. Regardless, if you don't want to try to make an analogy between homosexuality and beastiality, then I'm not going to pursue that discussion.


ok, first I'd like to point out that I agree that children, childrearing, and the education and provision of the next generation(s) is/are a huge issue for our society, and societies in general. As frostbyte points out, there was a time when heterosexuality was a survivial issue. People died at much younger ages, and manual labor was a huge issue. Point blank, you needed to make lots of babies so a few of them would make it out of childhood, some would work the farm, hunt, gather, etc - and some of them would ensure that the species continued.

That's just not the case in Western societies anymore. We don't need more babies...if anything, we have an overpopulation problem. Homosexuals would presumably have a higher probability of adopting children unwanted by other parents, in addition to not having their own children. That part of the issue, by itself, would seem to be a positive aspect for a society such as ours, as far as I can understand.

as gilda pointed out, are you sure about that? i give you that children are more likely to benefit from a stable homelife, but does that automatically mean a man and a woman? what about My Two Dads? Would children raised by a man and his father / brother be more apt, in your opinion, to be psychologically damaged? What if you compare them to the children of homosexuals parents with a physically / emotionally abusive household? Is it better for daddy to beat the kids and mom to cover up, or is it better for daddy and daddy, or mommy and mommy, to love the kids in a nurturing environment?

I think you're comparing the best possible scenario of heterosexual marriage, versus the worst possible scenario of homosexual marriage. I do not think that's a valid comparision.

as mentioned earlier, i hope this extends to any situation where groups of one gender act as the primary care provider / nuclear family. Forget the marriage aspect, but if two people of the same sex shouldn't raise children together, then that's an entirely different piece of legislation.

how do you separate contraception from infertility? Not making babies would seem to be not making babies, to me. also, as alluded to earlier, i fail to see how making the baby is the same thing as raising the child. i think i understand where you're going, but i disagree with some of the though processes by which you arrive at your conclusions.

huh? i kind of think our society is loads better than it was in say, 1100 A.D. britain. serfdom, anyone? i mean, being Count Pigglet would have rocked pretty hard....but being that dirty guy who works all the time would sort of suck. how exactly is letting gays marry going to destroy society?

s
llll
iiiiii
pppp
ppppp
eeeeeee
rrrrrrrrrrrr
yyyyyyyyyyyy


agreed. for instance, i like murder being illegal. there are some pretty good reasons behind that. i don't think anyone is advocating just some random old, willy nilly, changes. this particular one happens to make pretty good sense to bunch of people.

yep, thanks for your reply.

i agree wholeheartedly. of course, when refering to my "black" friends, i prefer "coolie" or "darky" or "sambo" too. you may feel that's a little extreme, but its not really up to you to decide what terminology gilda and her wife use with each other.


pssst....don't tell the people i know in india. they still arrange marriages between people who have never met each other. you might want to keep quiet around a lot of heterosexual married folk i know right here in the good old united states, who got married because they were scared of being alone, or wanted someone to provide for them. for instance, see my (heterosexual) great grandfather, who couldn't have had an erection the last ten years of his life if he tried. 100 year old men don't pop wood.

guess i still don't understand exactly the logic behind your position, but you're certainly welcome to it. however, one of the things about the united states is that while majority rules, the majority also can't deprive a minority of a right, simply because it wants to. it just doesn't work that way. homosexual marriage will be legal in this country one day.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style