Considering that the bigots want to pick and choose which parts of their holy book they adhere to, it would only make sense that they would pick and choose which parts of the other US "holy scripture" they would adhere to.
No matter how clearly "the founding fathers" stated it, separation of church and state is constantly too difficult of a concept.
This is (yet again) quite obviously a case where all people of a state are forced by law to follow certain religious doctrines. Their popularity should not be an excuse.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
It can get sensitive without stupid religion, a few years ago I was at a beach with my then 10 year old son when 2 guys started kissing right in front of us, I personally didn't like answering my sons questions.So yeah it was negative!
This has nothing to do with a dumb book or an imaginary god it has to do with nature, if all humans were to be gay, well, we wouldn't exist.
Not everything needs to be about procreation. If you find gay sex unnatural because it cannot produce offspring, do you find heterosexual oral sex abnormal?
Or let's try this one. Let's say my girlfriend and I want to get married but do not want to have children, so I get a vasectomy. Are we "unnatural" and make you uncomfortable?
In a world where human population growth is challenging the planet's ability to sustain it, I don't think the measuring stick of what should be considered normal is whether or not you can add or choose to add to that population.
-=-=-=-=-
As for your 10 year old kid, would you be equally put off by a heterosexual couple kissing and your son asking questions about that? If so, I have no issue. On the other hand if you were okay with explaining to your son that a heterosexual couple kissing is an expression of their love for one another, yet would have trouble explaining the same thing about a gay couple, then I have a problem.
When someone says "I saw this gay couple making out in public on a park bench... someone should have told them to get a room." I have to question whether the word "gay" needs to be in that sentence. And if the person includes that word, were they only upset BECAUSE the couple were gay.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Devils'Advocate For This Useful Post:
I don't have any kids, much less ones at ten years of age, but it's a shame you have some hang ups about two guys kissing... at ten years old it might have been a good opportunity to teach your son that yes, two people of the same sex can be in love or kiss.
For the record, all PDA's are stupid.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
This has nothing to do with a dumb book or an imaginary god it has to do with nature, if all humans were to be gay, well, we wouldn't exist.
If all humans were to be male, we wouldn't exist. Don't say it's right/wrong based on a biological reason, that's just as dogmatic as a religion.
There's nothing wrong feeling uncomfortable when seeing two men kiss, you are a product of your past and you can't change that.
But we have the ability to act a certain way despite our emotions, not just because of them.
And that's was a perfect opportunity to make a deliberate choice to impart a different lesson to your kid than the one that you were raised on.
My mom is deathly afraid of water, but she constantly makes a choice to not show it and act normally when the grand-kids are at the beach or pool in order not to transfer her feelings to her grand-kids.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Considering that the bigots want to pick and choose which parts of their holy book they adhere to, it would only make sense that they would pick and choose which parts of the other US "holy scripture" they would adhere to.
No matter how clearly "the founding fathers" stated it, separation of church and state is constantly too difficult of a concept.
This is (yet again) quite obviously a case where all people of a state are forced by law to follow certain religious doctrines. Their popularity should not be an excuse.
Well...It's been legally amended to be illegal according to the constitution of North Carolina. I'm a bit fuzzy on American law, but I think a state's constitution is a pretty powerful document, just below the US constitution, I believe?
So the supreme court could declare this amendment unconstitutional, but has not done so in other cases where other states have done the same thing.
Originally Posted by Itse;3703622
Although to be fair;
Considering that the bigots want to pick and choose which parts of their holy book they adhere to, it would only make sense that they would pick and choose which parts of the other US "holy scripture" they would adhere to.
[B
No matter how clearly "the founding fathers" stated it, separation of church and state is constantly too difficult of a concept.[/B]
This is (yet again) quite obviously a case where all people of a state are forced by law to follow certain religious doctrines. Their popularity should not be an excuse.
This is actually a common misconception of what the Constitution says, and what the founding fathers intended. The separation of church and state was never about the removal of religion from decision making, heck the word god is all over related documents, it's about a prohibition on the establishment of a state religion and the imposition of laws that advance a particular religion or discriminate against a particular religion. The fact that a law may have been inspired by religious beliefs doesn't violate this concept on it's own, you need to go beyond that to get into a Constitutional violation.
This is more of an equal protection clause situation, which is the likely grounds upon which an eventual Supreme Court case will be raised. The interesting element of that is how you shape it to be a Federal issue, as right now it's a matter that is more in the realm of the particular states.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Yeah, but a lot of the Founding Fathers were all Diests not Christians. Which basically teaches that god made everything then peaced out. So not the same thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Thankfully we've now had an ignorant slut weight in on this issue
Quote:
Following President Obama's announcement that he now - personally - supports gay marriage, Bristol Palin has chimed in criticizing him for allowing his daughter's to influence his decision.
"While it's great to listen to your kids' ideas, there's also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would've been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that's not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that - as great as her friends may be - we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids' worldview," the 21-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin wrote on her blog.
During Obama's interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, the President said, "Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and, frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."
Bristol continued with her criticism adding, "I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren't younger, or perhaps today's press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox."
The 21-year-old mom, who had a son with Playgirl model Levi Johnston when she was 19 (?), added, "Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.
In this case, it would've been nice if the President would've been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of 'Glee.'"
I love the "we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home" argument.
I took a class in sociology of families last semester and it has been found that there is literally zero evidence that a child from a traditional family will be any better off or any more stable than a child from gay/lesbian parenthood or divorced parents. There is no evidence that these conditions have ANY (positive or negative) effect on a child.
This is mostly because there is not way to see how children would be different if brought up ina different situation. My parents divorced when I was 16. Now that may have affected me positively or negatively or both depending on the traits you're looking at, but there's really no way to determine if I would be different otherwise. And there's certainly no gauge for how much "better" I could have been. Better at what?
Also, just because someone isn't old enough to drive a car, doesnt mean they don't have valid points when it comes to social issues like this. Now, if he had been taking his daughters advice about economic policy it would be a different story.
This is mostly because there is not way to see how children would be different if brought up ina different situation. My parents divorced when I was 16. Now that may have affected me positively or negatively or both depending on the traits you're looking at, but there's really no way to determine if I would be different otherwise. And there's certainly no gauge for how much "better" I could have been. Better at what?
That seems like a situation where you could take a really large sample and compare outcomes to me. At least in the case of divorced parents, which has been around for awhile. There might not be enough adult children of same-sex parents to get a representative sample yet. (Same sex parent's needing either scientific intervention or adoption to have children, whereas divorced parents just had the kids before they got divorced)
