no, i would rather they wasted no time and money, but seeings as how they already did, why not do it correctly the first time. and i do agree with pickleshack, they are hilarious.
Your telling me that a study of 84 families is comparible to the millions of heterosexual families out there? Of course the heterosexuals couples had more kids with problems, there were more people. That doesnt even make sense, but maybe i'm looking at it the wrong way.
Instead of being stubborn and pig-headed, you should fully read posts. I said, "even though it is only one study it is still interesting." I never said that it held concrete facts. Or that it even held a lot of merit. I was really just in awe of your ignorance and intolerance.
On another note, your a very clever moderator, Asherlee, vaugeley insulting me, but not saying anything directly towards me. So as to avoid trouble, taking a side and whatnot. And if i did actually complain to a higher up, you could say you werent even directing that comment at me, you were obviously directing it to anyone else who commented on the thread, besides my father of course, all of whom were on your side anyway.
What in the world are you talking about? You're on thin ice for simply being a troll. I would check your attitude, quickly.
People act how they act, there is nothing wrong with being flamboyant, and those who act that way are probably just doing what is in their nature. Besides, flamboyantly gay people are hilarious.
This is one of the few things I don't understand relating to homosexuality. I've seen mello gays, emo gays, serious gays, gruff-ruff-and-tough gays, but only a few flamboyantly-gay people. Are one of the generalizations of homosexuals being flamboyant? I've seen a lot of this generalization on cartoons and actors (hence the maturity of this whole stereotypical discussion).
Well, in male homosexuals, yes. They are, according to gay-lingo, bottoms. A lot of it is just behavior and exaggeration to help attract a certain type of guy to them. Think of the flamboyant guys like a peacock.
But, I will say this, I have seen some young kids (5-8) that have the same mannerisms and way of speaking. I wonder if it really is learned behavior at all?
I have no idea where you guys are in this discussion, and I am not going to read up on this either, because I won't stay to fight for why my opinion is right, since it is nothing but my opinion. Anyway.
Have you thought about that homosexual pairs might actually be way better parents than some heterosexuals? Other people will look down on them, say that they cannot raise children right, and will point out every mistake they make, simply to prove that "You are gay, you should isolate yourself from society, because you are messed up!". And they know this before they get children, which means they will fight, really, really fight for the child to become a star citizen, to prove themselves not only as parents but as humans equal to heterosexuals. Some pairs of heterosexuals are more willing to give up on their family, and let their kids do whatever, fight their spouse and generally give that image of a split, troubled family.
So it seems to me, especially because of the challenge there is in actually fitting in in society, homosexuals will actually fight to show that they are worth just as much as anyone else, which only seem to be something that other "outcasts" with challenges. Ghetto teens that want out, people who have been bullied all their lives but fought it through. After all, what doesn't kill you make you stronger, and if you are strong, you can raise your family to be as strong as you, if not stronger.
As for the marriage, I see no problem. If not because of the "You are not going to get married with them, so stop complaining", then because it is a strong symbol that drive woman mad to get right, and an even stronger cultural and social showcase. "I promise you, I will stay with you forever, love and honour you as my partner in life." So, by denying this symbol to people, you are setting them outside society, and making them less than human, because they are not allowed to show their love to the world like anyone else is.
I have a number of hypotheses for this; this is just me blowing smoke though. Maybe these kids are looking at these groups of people and they think "hey! That guy's getting attention and he's having a good time! I'll act like him and see if it works for me". Everyone yearns to be accepted, regardless of personality. Some may study others and try to mimic them to find out if it works for them.
Maybe the fabled gene really is biological and these signs incrementally get deeper with age.
Maybe the kids just have that personality but are still heterosexual. There are guys that act this way but are heterosexual at heart. My friends call them fruits.
I have no idea where you guys are in this discussion, and I am not going to read up on this either, because I won't stay to fight for why my opinion is right, since it is nothing but my opinion. Anyway.
Also:
This is mostly what we are doing in this thread: point out our opinions, discuss it, argue, someone else points out their opinion, and cycle restarts.
This is mostly what we are doing in this thread: point out our opinions, discuss it, argue, someone else points out their opinion, and cycle restarts.
I guess this is why I won't stay. I don't stubbornly claim that my opinion is the one and only true opinion, and is made of fact and whatever. That usually f up a lot of proper discussion.
Cen, you do bring up some interesting points. I think your theory is definitely something to discuss. Because I had just posted an article about a single study that the results happened to conclude that lesbian parents raised well-mannered children. But it was only a single study.
So, my response to your theory: Setting sexuality aside, not all people are good people. There are some very bad people that happen to be homosexual. There are just more heterosexual people, thus more bad parents. Less homosexual people, less bad parents.
Because we tend to think of things in a fairy-tale sort of way. For example, there are lesbian parents had their child from a previous relationship with a male. Things happen. The relationship could have ended badly and they walked out and met a female. Now, two lesbian females are raising a child.
In cases I've seen like the one I described above, it was not a good home life for that child. But it had nothing to do with either authority figures' sexuality. It had everything to do with the moral fiber of the birth mother being....what's the right word...irresponsible.
Here is a very sad insight to the lesbian community: I've know MANY couples break up and one of the girls goes out and finds a guy, has sex with him, ends up pregnant, all to just make her ex jealous.
NOW - this is just the worst case scenario I could imagine.
cenere is totally right, i will confess. my opinion only holds merit to me really. lol and aparently i hit a major chord with asherlee, still feelin the heat off of the last page. i do understand that anything is entirely possible. that is just my opinion that they should not be able to be married. i did happen to think up a good debate on the subject of the legal parts of marriage. if thats why they want to get married, they could just go to a lawyer, and do the exact same things on paper and sign/notarize. i get the whole love thing. i am married, we love each other. but we didn't need that marriage to validate or justify our love. we were young(er) and she was pregnant, and thought i was going to leave her, because thats what happened with her first boyfreind, but i adopted her daughter, and unfortunately we had to be married in order to get around alot of tricky paperwork and fees.
remember, i don't hate them. they are absolutely equal. but so are women to me, and i still cant have a baby, and that is something that they don't have a choice about right??
Of course. I can also imagine that if a couple of any kind get a kid, and one does not want this kid as much as the other, there will be conflicts. And if the pair of them are not strong, then it will be another broken home. It is hard to pose a theory on sexuality without having to take in cultural, social and psychological points. This both means that saying that being homosexual makes you are good parent is hard to verify, because there are so many other factors, but it is just as hard to say that, say, homosexuals should not have kids, because the children will grow up either to be bullied, or become gay themselves. It seems to me that it is as irrational to disallow a great social and cultural symbol for a group of people, as it is to conclude any gay man will want to have sex with you, or that standing outside in the rain will make you spontaneously combust. In the first case, as already mentioned, that group of people will be "the others", and at some point simply will not count as "human like us".
Homosexuals can have choices in wanting children. If you're talking to them in regards to choices, I'm assuming. They can adopt children as normal and as standard a procedure as the next couple. They can also have a birth mother. I don't know the ethical grounds for this; it can result from a series of experiences, some of which Asherlee pointed out.
The point is, homosexuals can have children if they wished. The only thing, the ONLY thing that is different is that they cannot have sex and naturally produce a baby of their own, obviously because they are both males and need female reproductive organs to procreate. Some people actually quote this against gay marriage. To me, they are just splitting hairs and should be ashamed for it.
I need to remember to quote. The entire post was in response to Asherlee.
As for why homosexuals can see a need to be married (big church wedding and all), besides the love and the legal parts, can be symbol (which I have mentioned a couple of times now) that becomes a stronger need when you are not accepted as a pair. Being married and letting the world see that you are together in sickness and health seems to be a stronger need, to fit in, and show the world. The second reason seem to be religion. That you want that churchly blessing that will make your marriage a happy and peaceful one. And, well, some might have the urge like some women seem to have, and want it to be big and fabulous. Idk. I guess those are my points. Can't really argue properly, since DK is a lot more large on the whole marriage-of-the-gay than say the USofA.
I guess this is why I won't stay. I don't stubbornly claim that my opinion is the one and only true opinion, and is made of fact and whatever. That usually f up a lot of proper discussion.
Staying to allow your opinion to be challenged allows you to confirm or adjust that stance.
On the flamboyancy seen in some homosexuals, could it be comparable to the behavior seen in some teen girls? Often stereotypically depicted from teens in groups on a shopping spree. The whole overly excited "OMG! that is to much!" attitude over seemingly nothing.
Since we see this behavior from some girls often sitting on the extreme feminine point of the scale it would also stand to reason we would see homosexuals also displaying similar mannerisms who also are sitting on the extreme feminine side of the scale.
Since seeing males behave in this way is outside our social norms it would stand to reason that we would take a greater notice to it when it occurs.
