Anti LGBT Mindset: Why are YOU against gay rights? READ MOD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POST

Money that the individual earned. It doesn't belong to the government. They simply take it. The government taking less money doesn't mean they are giving it to you. The government doesn't own your wealth.

Saying the government is giving you money because they are letting you keep yours, that is almost a communist ideal

- - - Updated - - -

Everybody understand it just fine. That just has (*)(*)(*)(*) to do with marriage.

 

And yet again, none of that has (*)(*)(*)(*) to do with marriage or with SSM being legal. However, have fun with your strawmen, because that's all you're going to have after June.

 

Whatever man, as long as you know that gays are getting special treatment from the corrupt government you will be fine.
By the way 2+2=4.
If government collect money equally from everyone but leave more money on your personal table that means that government pays you.

 

I don't buy conspiracy theories.

Exactly why marriage rights should be expanded. Right now we see special rights for heterosexual couples.

Notice I don't need to fabricate a shadow government boogeyman to be right, your position is dependant on it.

 

Heterosexual couples are not getting special treatment since they are regulated by the government. Marriage is part of regulation.
Did you come up with any idea why private activity of gay people should be sponsored by the government?

 

marriage isn't sponsored by the government.

 

David Axelrod: Obama Was 'Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting' Opposition To Gay Marriage In 2008


Barack Obama was "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting" his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new book authored by former senior White House adviser David Axelrod. David Axelrod: Obama Was 'Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting' Opposition To Gay Marriage In 2008

 

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. In 2008 a majority were against SSM. In 2012, the majority were for it. It's cowardly on Obama's part, especially considering Biden forced him to "come out" for it, but I kind of get why. So to all the right-wingers saying "no-one called Obama a homophobe when he was against SSM" - it's because we knew he was, as Axelrod so eloquently put, "bull*****ing"....

 

I personally believe that the attempt to erase homosexuality is absolutely naïve. In a matter of facts, that's a condition which can't be changed or buried, it must be accepted.
However, I'm against the proposal of the same-sex marriage and, especially, I'm against the adoption by same-sex couples. I want to focus on this second point, and I want to highlight how egoistic, preposterous and dangerous this proposal is. The homosexual community support this action for just one reason, which is certainly not the well-being of the adopted babies, but only the integration of same-sex couples in the society and its equalization to heterosexual couples. This reason is, I may say, quite egoistic, immoral and contemptible.
Homosexual couples are not, and will never be, as heterosexual couples. They are not able to grow children in the way the society needs them. They are not able to make the society progress. And the fights, and the campaigns, and the so-called "gay pride" are just demonstrations of how inadequate they'd be as parents, of how dangerous they'd be as parents. Homosexuals represent a major threaten to the founding values of our society and must, consequently, be treated as 2nd class citizens.
I have a little question, directed to who will criticize my ideas: Why, in nature, only heterosexual couples can have babies?

 

Marriage Equality…The Right Thing to do For The Children by Progressive Patriot 9.26.13

Many opponents of same sex marriage assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children.

And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.

Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents.

And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how they would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible. Those who still oppose same sex marriage but claim to care about the children are liars and hypocrites.

 

This sort of crap really pisses me off.!

While anyone can find anecdotal evidence or cite studies and come up with statistics that supports the view that children are harmed by having gay parents, I can speak from personal experience. I worked in a state run child welfare agency for 26 years. I had many jobs during that time including child protective services investigator, protective services supervisor, foster care unit supervisor, and foster and adoptive parent trainer.

The state in question, New Jersey, has been placing children with gay foster and adoptive parents for decades, long before same sex marriage was even being discussed. During my career, I was involved in some manner or other with thousands of cases of child abuse, including sexual abuse, physical abuse neglect as well is families that were generally dysfunctional due to substance abuse or mental health issues. I was responsible for removing children from some of those homes when it was determined that the risk was too great not to do so, or if the parents could not be rehabilitated.

In all that time I never came across a gay person who was the perpetrator of child abuse of any kind. Granted, they are few in number compared to heterosexual couples and single parents, but we are talking about a span of more than two and a half decades. In addition, I personally placed children with gay and lesbian couples and individuals after they were damaged by their straight parents. Those gay people provided loving and nurturing homes and gave those kids the best shot in life possible. And no, there were not enough straight people to care for those kids, but if there were I would have still have placed them with the gay folks if the match was right.

Never once did I have a problem with a gay foster of adoptive parent. Never once did any of them reject a child because they were not of the “correct” sexual orientation, but some straight people did in fact reject gay kids. During my time there and beyond I followed those families and I can tell you that those children have grown and thrived and overcame the bad hand that they were dealt by their straight parents, largely due to the nurturing offered and sacrifices made by the gay families who took them in.

In addition, when we talk about gay adoption, most often we are referring to situations where the child in question is the biological child of gay person and that persons partner wishes to adopt as a second parent. The benefits of having two legal parents are clear. There are an estimated 2 million children in the care of gay people. That will not change by banning adoption. It will only put those children at a disadvantage, socially, financially and legally. \

In conclusion, opposition to gay adoption is just ignorant and hateful equine excrement. To say that you care about the children while opposing adoption by gays is hypocrisy at it’s very worst.

- - - Updated - - -

Children raised by gay or lesbian couples benefit when their parents are allowed to marry, America’s top pediatrics group said Thursday in support of same-sex marriage.
“If a child has two living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interest of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a policy statement.

Dr. Ellen Perrin, co-author of the policy statement, says marriage gives children of same-sex couples the same advantages of any married couple’s children.
“Marriage provides permanence and security for children, and those are extremely important for children’s well-being,” said Perrin, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine who specializes in the developmental behavior of children. “(Marriage) allows them to grow up in an environment in which they’re confident of the solidity of their family and the fact that their family is just like every other family of kids they know in school.”

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/21/no-evidence-same-sex-marriage-harms-children-docs-say/

 

Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care
https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hi...an-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care


As a result of the increased inclusiveness of modern adoption and foster care policies, thousands of children now have homes with qualified parents.
Myths vs. Facts

Myth: The only acceptable home for a child is one with a mother and father who are married to each other.

Fact: Children without homes do not have the option of choosing between a married mother and father or some other type of parent(s). These children have neither a mother nor a father, married or unmarried. There simply are not enough married mothers and fathers who are interested in adoption and foster care. Last year only 20,000 of the 100,000 foster children in need of adoption were adopted, including children adopted by single people as well as married couples. Our adoption and foster care policies must deal with reality, or these children will never have stable and loving homes.

Myth: Children need a mother and a father to have proper male and female role models.

Fact: Children without homes have neither a mother nor a father as role models. And children get their role models from many places besides their parents. These include grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, friends, and neighbors. In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can ensure that the child to be adopted or placed in foster care is moving into an environment with adequate role models of all types.

Myth: Gays and lesbians don't have stable relationships and don't know how to be good parents.

Fact: Like other adults in this country, the majority of lesbians and gay men are in stable committed relationships.7 Of course some of these relationships have problems, as do some heterosexual relationships. The adoption and foster care screening process is very rigorous, including extensive home visits and interviews of prospective parents. It is designed to screen out those individuals who are not qualified to adopt or be foster parents, for whatever reason. All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."8 That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants.

Myth: Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves.

Fact: All of the available evidence demonstrates that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay.9 There is some evidence that children of gays and lesbians are more tolerant of diversity, but this is certainly not a disadvantage. Of course, some children of lesbians and gay men will grow up to be gay, as will some children of heterosexual parents. These children will have the added advantage of being raised by parents who are supportive and accepting in a world that can sometimes be hostile.

Myth: Children who are raised by lesbian or gay parents will be subjected to harassment and will be rejected by their peers.

Fact: Children make fun of other children for all kinds of reasons: for being too short or too tall, for being too thin or too fat, for being of a different race or religion or speaking a different language. Children show remarkable resiliency, especially if they are provided with a stable and loving home environment. Children in foster care can face tremendous abuse from their peers for being parentless. These children often internalize that abuse, and often feel unwanted. Unfortunately, they do not have the emotional support of a loving permanent family to help them through these difficult times.

Myth: Lesbians and gay men are more likely to molest children.

Fact: There is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. All of the legitimate scientific evidence shows that. Sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is an adult sexual attraction to others. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an adult sexual attraction to children. Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."10

Myth: Children raised by lesbians and gay men will be brought up in an "immoral" environment.

Fact: There are all kinds of disagreements in this country about what is moral and what is immoral. Some people may think raising children without religion is immoral, yet atheists are allowed to adopt and be foster parents. Some people think drinking and gambling are immoral, but these things don't disqualify someone from being evaluated as an adoptive or foster parent. If we eliminated all of the people who could possibly be considered "immoral," we would have almost no parents left to adopt and provide foster care. That can't be the right solution. What we can probably all agree on is that it is immoral to leave children without homes when there are qualified parents waiting to raise them. And that is what many gays and lesbians can do.
NOTES:

1See American Psychological Association

 

Perhaps it’s time to take a time out and tell a story, and then ask a simple question

I have gay neighbors. They are a married Caucasian couple-both professional men in their early 30s. One is a school social worker, and the other is a financial advisor for a well-known investment house. They introduced me to their 3 year old African American, special needs child and said that he is their son, who they adopted through the state. His parents were killed in an auto accident a year ago and the child had been in 3 foster homes since then. There was no extended family able and willing to care for him. Special needs children, especially minorities are very hard to place and to find a stable home for, but these two men stepped up to take that responsibility.

I now know that in what little spare time they have, they do volunteer work with Habitat for Humanity, and occasionally deliver meals on wheels. They plan on having two more children by a surrogate mother with each of them donating sperm for that purpose. Each will then adopt the child of the other as the second parent.

Can you honestly tell me that these two men, who are contributing to society and the community in many ways, do not deserve the benefits, protection and status of being married? Can you explain to me why it is more important to prohibit same sex marriage and adoption by gays than to allow this child to have the stability and security of having married parents? Can you say that this is not a family in every sense of the word? Please be honest and give your reasons.

 

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

Ya think that you might want to rethink some of your clap trap bud?

 

Yes gay couples do not have children in the same way that a fertile heterosexual couple might have them . But you know what? many heterosexual couple cannot and do not have children in the "normal way" either. Many rely on sperm donors and surrogates. What is the difference? Are those children born to heterosexual couples by other means less valued, less human than others? Are they being selfish and egotistical for wanting children anyway? Should heterosexual couples who cannot have children in the usual way be allowed to marry? Where do you get this crap about gay peoples motives. That is just as stupid as stupid gets.

Perhaps you have not thought this out very well . Go back and try again.

 

...which you would know because you're omniscient or a mindreader? I don't think so. I think this is just your own, egoistic spew.

Well, anything I'd like to say in response to that bit of misplaced arrogance would probably get me banned. So I'll leave it to your imagination what I think of you and your attitude problem.

Oh, and don't bother replying to me - I won't be reading your posts. I have no time for someone who so completely disrespects me based on something like my same-sex orientation.

 

Just another hit and run low information troll . I tried to educate him but he did not have the integrity or the intellectual capacity to respond.

 

As a Christian, and a citizen of this nation, I believe in equal rights for all - rights of self determination, life, and the pursuit of happiness, including equal rights in contract law and employment.

It's that simple.

Now, Jesus Christ, the greatest teacher ever known, acknowledged that some people were born gay. Denying this is denying Jesus and his teachings.

Matthew - 11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

In this scripture Jesus is using the term eunuch, which is an ancient term for a homosexual. Jesus is not saying, however, that men cannot enter marriage with other men. He is saying that homosexual men should not enter marriage with a woman.

Anyway, I think the entire thing is an obtuse farce. It impacts NO ONE that these folks marry, beyond some platitude about straight men marrying to get tax benefits - a ridiculous and absurd scare tactic. There is no logic behind it, beyond fear and special snowflake syndrome.

 

Thank you very much! I hope that the people who need to hear this do in fact read it. You should post it on every thread concerning homosexuality.

 

What Do You Do When Your Brother Campaigns Against Your Rights? Write Him A Letter Like This.

The fight for LGBT equality in America is a personal struggle for the millions of us who are affected. For Donald Collins, it hits especially close to home. He is an out, married gay man; his sister is a married lesbian businesswoman with a family.

But their older brother, Arkansas state rep. Charlie Collins, has been actively working to deny civil rights to gay people.

Charlie voted yes on SB 202, a bill that essentially blocks any county in the state from extending protections to LGBT people, as the town of Feyettville, Ark. tried to do last year. The bill passed and was sent to Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who said he will allow it to become law.

Noting that “my brother has a vote, but I have a voice,” Donald penned a letter to Charlie and the people of Arkansas in an attempt to work towards resolution.

He points out an especially hypocritical move by Charlie — that while he works in Arkansas to prevent gay people from gaining workplace protections, he is sending his daughter to stay with his lesbian sister in Seattle to be interviewed by the Fortune 500 company she works for for a potential job.

Donald writes: http://www.queerty.com/what-do-you-...-rights-write-him-a-letter-like-this-20150218

 

- - - Updated - - -

First, I take that as a compliment. In a matter of facts, It really doesn't annoy me any of your personal considerations about me, even if I find strange that some people which think respect others rights is extremely important speak to me like that.
Second, I, differently from the attitude of other members of this forum, have read your several posts, and I want to clarify my position. First of all I do respect gay or lesbian people, and I treat them exactly as any other when it comes to work, to politics, to economics etc.
However, I cannot treat them equally to heterosexuals when it comes to family. You may be a very pragmatic person, well I'm not. I tend to consider myself a person of values. And among those values there is a deep and well-established sense of family, since family is the first group that educate us. Statistics say that if we born in a poor and disadvantaged family, coming from a poor a neighbourhood, we will have most chance to remain poor and disadvantaged. I understand your considerations about the facts that the family is not our only mind-shaper, but you, working in the field of children, should know much better than all of us that it is the first and most important one.
Apart from the possibility of giving in adoption children in disadvantaged situations to homosexuals couples, which I might agree on, I'm talking about the rightness of the concept, and not about the usefulness that it may have in certain problematic situations. Therefore, I ask you if an homosexual couple can give to a baby the same opportunities and values that an heterosexual one could give.
P.S. I notice that none of you brilliant fighter for the cause of gay and lesbians rights answered my question. I would really appreciate that

 

To be honest, your post is a bit hard to follow. You are kind of all over the place. You might want to work on your writing and organizational skills. However, I will try to respond. What I’m getting is this:

You “respect gay people and you treat them as others in most areas of life. Good. But, when it come to families and children you draw the line. Then they are not equal. Not equal when it comes to the most basic and central aspect of life that defines us as human. I have to question how much respect you really have.

You consider yourself to be a person of values. However, I provided extensive information about how allowing gays to marry and adopt children provides a tangible advantage to children, yet you reject the idea of adoption by gays, except maybe if it involves disadvantaged children. I have to ask, what sort of values you are talking about.

You bring up the “rightness of the concept” ( gay adoption) vs. the “usefulness” of it. , while admitting that you are not “pragmatic” What exactly are you talking about? You seem to have this vague sense of what is “right”, but can’t actually say why or reconcile that with the information that I provided. Are you willing to punish children for the purpose of preventing gays from marrying and adopting because of some vague misguided sense of what is “right”

You asked again: “if an homosexual couple can give to a baby the same opportunities and values that an heterosexual one could give.” I answered that in several ways in my initial respose to you, but here is again. YES! Why would they not be? They are people like everyone else. The only difference is the fact that the couple both have the same equipment between their legs. Having two parents of the same gender vs. opposite genders is a factor that is way down on the list of factors that influence a child’s wellbeing and development. The fact that you even bring that up is justification for my referring to you as a “low information” person

You really need to work on your presentation and writing skills, not to mention your knowledge base on the subject of adoption and gay parenting.

 

Thanks for the advice, but I might not want to follow it.
The question I was referring about was the one I wrote on my original post, which goes like this: Why nature has allowed only heterosexuals couples to have children and to educate them?
Because this is the reality. The reality is that we want to give children to whom doesn't have the natural right to have them.
The funny thing is that, probably, many of those who support homosexuals rights also defend the environment and the nature. Seems to me a bit contradictory, doesn't it?

 

I think he ment that it's hard to follow because you English, or your English typing skills are not too great.

Case and point, you refer to things not about them.

I digress, homosexual couples can and do have children. Seems you are mistaken.

Nobody really has any right to have them. If you abuse them our society takes them away from you, we might even imprison you. That isn't a right. Now if you are referencing some appeal to nature, there is no such thing as a natural right.

How do you figure? Homosexuals can and do have children. Some do quite naturally in fact.

 

Can they have children? Well I have never seen a man pregnant, I may have lost some parts, but I don't think so. If two people, be they men or women, are homosexuals they will not get pregnant, naturally. This is very basic sexual education.