Jump to content


Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
302 replies to this topic

#21 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:11 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:07 PM, said:

If those are the only choices I agree...but they rarely if ever are. There are plenty of two gender families that want to adopt in the US and can't. Thats why they have to turn to overseas agencies, like the one Im affiliated with, FANA.
I think for a lot of kids who are not in the desirable adopting age, homosexual couples might be their best bet. There are still tons of kids who bounce around foster care.and the mere fact that this scenario could occur (even if only rarely in your opinion) that should still be enough for gay adoption to be legal.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#22 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:15 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with "contagion" or "pedophiles". I think every child needs a parent of both genders for healthy psycholgical development.
Disputable.Either way, that's an issue for the adoption agencies to decide, not the Federal government, and not even the state government. I don't see why being gay becomes an litmus test on the adoption issue. Why can't agencies simply factor it in with other considerations? Why does it have to be black or white with only this issue?

#23 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:18 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

Disputable.Either way, that's an issue for the adoption agencies to decide, not the Federal government, and not even the state government. I don't see why being gay becomes an litmus test on the adoption issue. Why can't agencies simply factor it in with other considerations? Why does it have to be black or white with only this issue?
It's disputable, but its not unreasonable to suggest that the most healthy situation for a child is to have a parent of both genders. How that should relate to adoption policies, I'm not in a position to say. But certainly there are deep psychological consequences associated with having a missing parent, or with having only a single gender present in early childhood.

#24 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:22 PM

View Postcopernicus, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

If those are the only choices I agree...but they rarely if ever are. There are plenty of qualified two gender families that want to adopt in the US and can't. Thats why they have to turn to overseas agencies, like the one Im affiliated with, FANA. We tried for two years and couldnt find an agency, and wound up adopting my son in Colombia.
the goaltender? man, that would've made a great story.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#25 neretva

neretva

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 139 posts
  • Location:Northern New Jersey
  • Interests:Poker,jazz guitar,computer games

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:39 PM

View PostSuitedAces21, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 6:00 PM, said:

You cannot lump all homosexual couples seeking to adopt into this category. Maybe there are gay couples who adopt for those reasons, but I think the numbers are low. Very low. People, hetero and homo, do not adopt a child "just because". Adoption is a very serious process. One that is not entered into lightly. I think many gay couples adopt because they want to help better a childs life. And they should be allowed too. Leaving a child in foster care, or whatever its called in that state, becuase you think a child needs both a male and female parent is beyond ridiculous. Two males, who truly love a child, are more than qualified to raise that child. The love and attention recieved will more than make up for not having a female parent.
Love is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. All the available studies conclude that a male-female scenario is superior to a gay scenario in terms of healthy and happy development of an infant. It's pretty damn obvious too. With older kids, it's debatable, but with infants it's not.However, if there are truly, absolutely, no straight couples around to adopt a kid, the gay option is better than foster care. But I doubt that ever happens.
"Pay him... pay that man his money"

#26 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 04 October 2008 - 09:42 PM

View Postneretva, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

Love is not enough. Good intentions are not enough. All the available studies conclude that a male-female scenario is superior to a gay scenario in terms of healthy and happy development of an infant. It's pretty damn obvious too. With older kids, it's debatable, but with infants it's not.However, if there are truly, absolutely, no straight couples around to adopt a kid, the gay option is better than foster care. But I doubt that ever happens.
If the last sentence of your post was true then there would be no kids in DCF. There are always plenty of straight couples around to adopt babies. There are never enough straight couples around to adopt all children.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#27 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 04 October 2008 - 10:27 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

I think for a lot of kids who are not in the desirable adopting age, homosexual couples might be their best bet. There are still tons of kids who bounce around foster care.and the mere fact that this scenario could occur (even if only rarely in your opinion) that should still be enough for gay adoption to be legal.
I didnt say it should be illegal...i dont think its the governments business, but I also dont think an agency should approve them except in rare circumstances
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#28 copernicus

copernicus

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 10,676 posts
  • Interests:Hockey; poker...duh

Posted 04 October 2008 - 10:32 PM

View Poststrategy, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

the goaltender? man, that would've made a great story.
First Colombian born goalie in pro hockey, lol. (If he makes it, of course).
___________


Wave upon wave of Demented Avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.



#29 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:01 PM

Gay couples adopting isn't a static issue.Kids are mean in school, putting a generation or two in a condition of constant teasing shows that the gay adopt thing is a selfish thing.As far as the marraige thing, it's the word marriage. Again, the gays don't want what's best, they want what they want.I'm not allowed to marry another man, why should they be allowed too? They want extra rights because of how they perform the sex act.Don't forget less than 40 years ago being gay was classified as a mental disorder caused by a dominating mother and an absent or wimpy father figure. Now of course it's caused by voting democrat too often
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#30 nutzbuster

nutzbuster

    Point taken....

  • Members
  • 11,378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix / Motor City

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:13 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

As far as the marriage thing, it's the word marriage.
This



F Cancer

#31 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:18 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

I'm not allowed to marry another man
Yes you are.

#32 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 05 October 2008 - 12:08 AM

View Postvbnautilus, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:18 AM, said:

Yes you are.
I just asked the wife, and she said I wasn't. So it appears you are wrong again vb.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

Most bad government has come out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

#33 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 05 October 2008 - 12:09 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 1:08 AM, said:

I just asked the wife, and she said I wasn't. So it appears you are wrong again vb.
whipped imo.

#34 checkymcfold

checkymcfold

    almost back to real stakes.

  • Members
  • 9,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:stanley mission, sk
  • Favorite Poker Game:night baseball

Posted 05 October 2008 - 12:19 AM

View Postneretva, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 12:52 AM, said:

I think gay people are behaving in an incredibly selfish manner in wanting to raise an infant. It is treating kids like a car or a house. I want it "just because", and "just because" I want it, I should be allowed to have it. You have to think of the child's well being above all else, and put your own selfish desires under wraps. It's too important a responsibility to be undertaken for personal aggrandizement.
i think the same thing about infertile men and women.but wait, wait, back up here for a second. i still don't think that interracial couples should be allowed to marry or that families of one race should be allowed to adopt children of another. these are obviously different issues and need to be taken on before we can even start with the whole gay thing.
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If there are two things LHE players like, they are weed and pornography. The third would be kittens. LHE does not appear on the list.





#35 checkymcfold

checkymcfold

    almost back to real stakes.

  • Members
  • 9,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:stanley mission, sk
  • Favorite Poker Game:night baseball

Posted 05 October 2008 - 12:22 AM

View Postneretva, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 1:39 AM, said:

All the available studies conclude that a male-female scenario is superior to a gay scenario in terms of healthy and happy development of an infant.
quote me one study that accounts for socioeconomic factors. one.
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If there are two things LHE players like, they are weed and pornography. The third would be kittens. LHE does not appear on the list.





#36 Sheiky

Sheiky

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,734 posts
  • Location:Liverpool, England
  • Interests:Poker, sports, music
  • Favorite Poker Game:None, everyone hates poker

Posted 05 October 2008 - 05:09 AM

View Poststrategy, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 5:47 AM, said:

is it better or worse than being shuffled around, never finding a permanent home at all?shame there's not much data, but I've heard plenty of promising anecdotal evidence about adoptees in gay families.
There are quite a few studies on the issue I think. I was watching a parliamentary debate re-run and the speakers referenced quite a few names and studies into the matter, though the conclusion wasn't very clear either way.

View PostBalloon guy, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 8:01 AM, said:

Gay couples adopting isn't a static issue.Kids are mean in school, putting a generation or two in a condition of constant teasing shows that the gay adopt thing is a selfish thing.As far as the marraige thing, it's the word marriage. Again, the gays don't want what's best, they want what they want.I'm not allowed to marry another man, why should they be allowed too? They want extra rights because of how they perform the sex act.Don't forget less than 40 years ago being gay was classified as a mental disorder caused by a dominating mother and an absent or wimpy father figure. Now of course it's caused by voting democrat too often
Are you being serious or making a joke?They want extra rights because of the way they perform a sex act? WTF are you talking about? They want equal rights, they don't want to be disadvantaged by tax breaks to married couples, which i'm not sure if that is the case atm but in England the party who's about to win the next election is planning on doing just that.

#37 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 05 October 2008 - 05:17 AM

View PostSheiky, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 9:09 AM, said:

There are quite a few studies on the issue I think. I was watching a parliamentary debate re-run and the speakers referenced quite a few names and studies into the matter, though the conclusion wasn't very clear either way.Are you being serious or making a joke?They want extra rights because of the way they perform a sex act? WTF are you talking about? They want equal rights, they don't want to be disadvantaged by tax breaks to married couples, which i'm not sure if that is the case atm but in England the party who's about to win the next election is planning on doing just that.
Exactly. To me it is more about Tax Breaks and other financial issues than it is about expressions of Love or Relationship. My wife and I are childless by choice and therefore rarely see any benefits from so many breaks given to families with children. We are taxed WAY out of proportion relative to benefits we get back. It is just too easy for politicians to pass out these sorts of benefits because it doesn't take much thought. I believe that "marriage" should be a non-government definition.Instead of redefining Marriage, I think we need to redefine the Tax Breaks and other legal views of committed relationships.

#38 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 05 October 2008 - 05:19 AM

View PostRon_Mexico, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 9:02 PM, said:

This is just an issue that puzzles me. This isn't necessarily a Dem or Repub thing because as we found out in the VP debate, both are against it.Basically, if you're against it, why? How does it affect you if two dudes or two gals you've never met get married? Does it cost you money? Do they get benefits you don't? What's the deal? Now, I'd rather not read that it's morally wrong, or not a traditional marriage, because that's simply applying your belief system to other people, which I think is wrong, and a lot of what's wrong with this country.So basically, how are you actually affected by two gay people being dumb enough to want to get married? How does it hurt you?
I don't care. I believe God does but that's between gays and God, it's not my life or choice to make.
So much for a comeback.

#39 neretva

neretva

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 139 posts
  • Location:Northern New Jersey
  • Interests:Poker,jazz guitar,computer games

Posted 05 October 2008 - 05:22 AM

View Postcheckymcfold, on Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 9:22 PM, said:

quote me one study that accounts for socioeconomic factors. one.
I don't care about socioeconomic factors. They are irrelevant.The best option for a child's healthy development is a responsible man married to a responsible woman with a stable household.Every other option involves a compromise and increased risk of dysfunction. The goal should always be to place an infant in the best possible circumstances.If that is impossible, then we can prioritize and explore the alternatives (infertile straight parents, gays, whatever). Aside to the forum: Please don't supply your personal anecdotes about rising above your gay, infertile, schizophrenic drug-addicted parent(s). It's boring. The argument is not about what humans can endure in their upbringing.
"Pay him... pay that man his money"

#40 Loismustdie

Loismustdie

    What year is this?

  • Members
  • 7,236 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix

Posted 05 October 2008 - 05:37 AM

View Postneretva, on Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 6:22 AM, said:

I don't care about socioeconomic factors. They are irrelevant.The best option for a child's healthy development is a responsible man married to a responsible woman with a stable household.Every other option involves a compromise and increased risk of dysfunction. The goal should always be to place an infant in the best possible circumstances.If that is impossible, then we can prioritize and explore the alternatives (infertile straight parents, gays, whatever). Aside to the forum: Please don't supply your personal anecdotes about rising above your gay, infertile, schizophrenic drug-addicted parent(s). It's boring. The argument is not about what humans can endure in their upbringing.
Now this is a man I can get behind.
So much for a comeback.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users