Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Gay people
Thread: Gay people This thread is 38 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 30 ... 34 35 36 37 38 · «PREV / NEXT»
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted January 17, 2004 01:51 AM

Hey Acu!  Long time no talk!

Actually I think there are always some active things we can do for a group of people who are being mistreated.  One of those things we are doing right now, to discuss why they are considered different and how important it is not to treat them differently.

One thing we can do, if we are so inclined, is to get involved in local government action to help the laws along to give gay people the same rights as other people.  You might find that in your area, for instance, it is against the law to deny a person of color who wants to rent somebody's house, but it is not against the law to deny the person rental rights because of their sexual orientation (because they are gay).

Another example of supporting gay people is this really big battle that is going on right now about giving gay people the same rights to marriage, or civil union.  I have many friends who cannot get the same medical benefits as I can because their spouse is the same sex.  To me it is differential treatment based on sexual orientation, and that is discrimination.

So think about this, and if you want to support gay people, think about contacting your government representative and expressing your opinion.  That person is responsible for representing you and everyone in your local constituency in your state government.  Your voice should count for something.

Acu, if you want to talk more about how to approach this, then IM me and we'll talk about it more.  It's always good to hear from you my friend.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted January 17, 2004 09:45 AM

Sure np .
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asmodean
Asmodean


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
posted January 27, 2004 05:06 AM

My brain just woke up from hibernation to tell me it must have been Valeriy that gave me my QP. Just like to say thanx!
____________

To err is human, to arr is pirate.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
whinie_the_b...
whinie_the_behemoth


Adventuring Hero
grrrrr!
posted January 27, 2004 08:24 AM


I think that people are more open about sexual preferences now than a few years ago. Most younger people I know have no problem with it, probably because they have been brought up in a different way than those of the previous generations. In my opinion the source of discrimination lies in the family and the way children are brought up. I`ll quote a phrase from peacemaker:
"One thing we can do, if we are so inclined, is to get involved in local government action to help the laws along to give gay people the same rights as other people."

Why not fight the problem as it`s source. The governement relies on voters, and if the parents are making the children believe that anything other than "straight" is wrong then the future voters will believe so and there wont be many chances for improvement. Same goes with people who tell such nonsense to their friends, spreading the word that "gay" is wrong or that foreign people are the cause of their troubles.. It doesn`t happen so much nowdays thankefuly, and it better not.. My point is that the simplest way to diminish discrimination is to affect the people around us and probably the most effective way in the long term. We shouldn`t forget that the governement does what is popular.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 27, 2004 09:30 AM
Edited By: Consis on 6 Sep 2004

My Personal Feelings On The Matter


It is with no small amount of dignity that I now decide to stand up for my personal beliefs. I have posted, thus far, on my stance concerning gay people to everyone but my own children. When it comes to other people I treat them as a person through and through but when it comes to say, my son, I don't want him to be homosexual. I don't tell him anything I feel personally on the matter because, for all I know, he might already be gay. As I said I'm waiting to see the future of cloning to know for sure if it is truly hereditary. Even though I don't tell him my thoughts concerning gay people I still make sure he dresses in masculine apparel. That is all. I don't enforce behavioral restrictions as to differentiating which mannerisms are femanine or masculine. I don't tell him gay people are bad. In fact, the opposite is true. I make sure he knows that compassion and love make us human. Anything less is animalistic. I simply make sure his clothes are of male representation. He's only 5 years old. If he asked me I would tell him not to ever insult or think less of a homosexual person but in my heart I just don't understand it. Part of my life on this earth is to make sure my children know that without me they would not exist. The same applies to their mother, who loves them with all her heart. We both love them and we work very hard to make our marriage work, which is an example to them. Every single action between my wife and I will affect my two daughters and my son for the rest of their lives. I want to show them that I love their mother. I think it's important they know that we will always be there for them as long as we live. A man and a woman make children, same sexes do not.

If someone were to argue over the adoption of children by same sex couples then I would first ask what kind of people are they? People should be awarded the right to adopt according to their history, decision-making process, and how able they are to care for a child. If, after the couple was praised for exemplary qualifications then I approve of them taking on an adopted child.

As to the argument, currently running in the U.S. senate, as to whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to gain the lawful married status then I would have to say:

1. Saying yes would force, literally force, this country to redefine its meaning of the word "marriage". If marriage is allowed between same sexes and afforded all the rights of married individuals under the law then, being married myself, I would have to ask: "What does marriage mean now? Is it now a Marxist defined invention to inherit property?" If the answer is yes to that then I will become a fierce opponent this new law. I do not, even in the slightest degree consider my marriage to be any sort related to property or inventions or inheritance. I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my natural life getting to know her as an individual. I believe it takes an entire lifetime to say that you truly know someone. I trust her. We share thoughts and morales on many things but there is so much yet to learn. Love binds us, yet to no end shall I ever question a deliverance thereof. Together we have made some very significant sacrifices for each other. Before I met her I was an infidel, with very little self respect. I cheated and played mind games with other women. It was very self destructive.

2. All the while that I find homosexuallity an unknown for my beleaguered thoughts I also remain resolute in the seperation of church and state. When visiting a certain church(I will not specify) the speaker of the congregation was urging people to vote a certain way as to oppose the legalizing of gay-marriages. There must have been atleast a thousand or more people there. I was so disgusted that I got up in the middle of it and walked out. I was the only one that I saw, that did this. Block voting is one thing but when I hear the devil's name attached to a proposed bill, then it sickens me. Enthusiasm of that nature is appauling and rots the very core of what this country is trying to accomplish. To think people trust these speakers is frightening. I fear cults more than I fear these suicide bombers. It's the fervent speeches from people like this that poison the minds of millions, and in turn could possibly cause another anti-Semitic holocaust. Except this time it might be against same sex-couples and/or individuals.

So I say, if I have the chance, I will be the first to defend the civil rights of any homosexual. I would even give my life in defending the rights of american homosexual citizens. Personally, however, I remain utterly confused while bearing no ill-will towards these other human beings.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Asmodean
Asmodean


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
posted January 27, 2004 02:26 PM

Quote:

1. Saying yes would force, literally force, this country to redefine its meaning of the word "marriage". If marriage is allowed between same sexes and afforded all the rights of married individuals under the law then, being married myself, I would have to ask: "What does marriage mean now? Is it now a Marxist defined invention to inherit property?" If the answer is yes to that then I will become a fierce opponent this new law. I do not, even in the slightest degree consider my marriage to be any sort related to property or inventions or inheritance. I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my natural life getting to know her as an individual. I believe it takes an entire lifetime to say that you truly know someone. I trust her. We share thoughts and morales on many things but there is so much yet to learn. Love binds us, yet to no end shall I ever question a deliverance thereof. Together we have made some very significant sacrifices for each other. Before I met her I was an infidel, with very little self respect. I cheated and played mind games with other women. It was very self destructive.
quote]

I agree with this. This is why I would get married. I totally agree.

Except the bit about women.
____________

To err is human, to arr is pirate.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
redhawk
redhawk


Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
posted January 28, 2004 06:53 PM

Quote:
Quote:

1. Saying yes would force, literally force, this country to redefine its meaning of the word "marriage". If marriage is allowed between same sexes and afforded all the rights of married individuals under the law then, being married myself, I would have to ask: "What does marriage mean now? Is it now a Marxist defined invention to inherit property?" If the answer is yes to that then I will become a fierce opponent this new law. I do not, even in the slightest degree consider my marriage to be any sort related to property or inventions or inheritance. I married my wife because I love her and want to spend the rest of my natural life getting to know her as an individual. I believe it takes an entire lifetime to say that you truly know someone. I trust her. We share thoughts and morales on many things but there is so much yet to learn. Love binds us, yet to no end shall I ever question a deliverance thereof. Together we have made some very significant sacrifices for each other. Before I met her I was an infidel, with very little self respect. I cheated and played mind games with other women. It was very self destructive.
quote]

I agree with this. This is why I would get married. I totally agree.

Except the bit about women.
I'm new here, and I apologize for butting in to this topic. A person is A person, regardless of his race, creed, color, religon, or sexual orientation.To each there own. I'm heterosexual, married to A wonderful women, and I have 3 children, ages 12 to 8. and I have been married for 14 years this April. I do not condon homosexuallity, the thought is kind of revolting, but I do not hold personal preferances against others. Gay people should not be given special consideration or treatment, based on the fact that they are gay. Nor should the be singled out as A lesser person. everyone is equal and should be treated with dignity, and respect based on there individual qualities, and governments, or groups should not interfear with A persons right to choose, as long as the choices that they make do not indanger other lives or freedoms.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted January 28, 2004 09:56 PM
Edited By: Peacemaker on 28 Jan 2004

Redhawk, welcome to you my friend.  I thought your post was very good.

Consis, Excellent post.  There are a few things that you should keep in mind about whether granting marriage rights to gay individuals in some form would "tranform" marriage into something lesser than it is by focusing more on property rights.

The very institution of marriage arose originallyprimarily for the purpose of determining patrilineage in order to determine inheritance rights.  That the Church adopted this institution and sanctified it could be, and is, seen by some as itself a violation of church and state.  Marriage laws are already very much a product of the establishemnt of property ownership and inheritance by determining natural lineage.  That remains true to this day.  In this respect, nothing that I know of (and I have researched this issue fairly extensively) would change about the status of your own marriage.  All granting marriage rights to homosexuals would do is grant them the same rights you already have.

In the last few centuries the focus of marriage has shifted from arranged economic units (prearranged marriages) to independently-forged unions motivated out of love.  So in a way, the human race has already outgrown the original purpose of the original institution.  Something should be said, then, for gay unions forged out of love, yet denied the same property rights as others.  The church, who arguably never should have gotten involved in the first place in this economically-driven institution, now seeks to deny the same rights to a group of people based on the religious judgments of some selected religions.  If you ask me, it is the revisited height of hypocricy to claim a separation of church and state, while at the same time have so much religious influence in a matter of law as I think this originally was and probably should have remained.  But then I think that was your point and why you found the attachment of evil during a debate about laws so disturbing.

I know there are religious folk who will find this view offensive.  But you guys can count on it that it's just as offensive to those of us who see these things as separate issues that they are getting all jumbled up like they are.

By the way, you all might find this somewhat interesting.  My seven-year-old son is an American Indian boy who has never had his hair cut, by his own choosing.  It rests in a long braid down his back beyond his waistline.  He is a very attractive child and people in this society almost universally identify him as female at first glance, commenting to him or me or both using terms referencing the feminine gender ("how pretty she is!")  ("And how are you little girl?")  One of us will gently correct the soon-to-be embarassed stranger and reassure them in a forgiving tone that the mistaken identity is virtually universal.  

My son has been teased by other children in my presence about such things like whether he has barbie dolls too since he has girls' hair. My son has very confidently, unthreateningly corrected them that he is not interested in girls' toys; why should he be?  He is a boy after all.  The level of his confidence is almost annoying.  I would have given anything at that age to have been able to let things like that roll off my back like he does.

I asked him one night, after one of these teasing episodes, whether he ever thinks about cutting off his hair.  He looked at me slightly taken aback that I should even ask, and responded with a long, drawn out Wayne's World-style "Noooooooo!"  He is so confident with his identity that such things simply do not bother him.

My son is, by the way, about as boy as a boy can get.  He's had a crush on a little girl who is the daughter of close friends since age four, and the feeling has always been mutual.  He plays with GI Joes, trucks, Hotwheels, swords, is an archer and has a BB gun.  While he is both a gentle soul and nurturing, taking care of his stuffed animals when they have colds and carrying them around in blankets, there is not the least hint of any gender confusion on his part.  He knows it is perfectly acceptable to me if he should ever feel attraction toward another boy, yet all his romantic focus has been trained on this little girl, from the very beginning.

Just thought you all would find that example of gender/sexual identity intersting in light of recent comments.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asmodean
Asmodean


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
posted January 28, 2004 10:02 PM
Edited By: Asmodean on 28 Jan 2004

Wow peacemaker. I never thought I'd see it laid out like that. When I read I know that it's what I've been thinking but never been able to explain to people when this topic comes up.

In view of the sexual identity thing.
When I was a kid I had all the boys toys too. He-Man, Thundercats, Guns, Cars. I wouldn't have wanted to play with my sisters toys - they were boring dolls.
While being gay, I never considered myself as less than a man because of it. I was on the hurley team at school - hurley is an irish game like hockey only much faster and rougher.

When I go to a gay club and they say there is an act on - you can guarantee it's a drag queen which is fine. The first 5 times. I have no problem with those gals, but I know I'll end up tarred with that brush because they are so prominent in the gay community. I have never felt the need to dress up in women's clothes or to take on another persona due to my being gay.

I'm not saying this is the case for every gay guy though, it's more than obvious it's not. But sexual identity while it very often overlaps sexuality, is not the same thing.

I have met the most macho gay guys and the campest straight guys. And it's even harder for me not to assume 'oh he's gay/straight' as I see it all the time, and generally I get shocked as much as everyone else when we find out that the big strapping football crazy man's man is gay.
But I'm as much a victim of social conditioning as everyone else.
____________

To err is human, to arr is pirate.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted January 29, 2004 02:12 AM
Edited By: Consis on 6 Sep 2004

Your Post Is Also Good But I Disagree On Some Points Peacemaker

Quote:
The very institution of marriage arose originallyprimarily for the purpose of determining patrilineage in order to determine inheritance rights.


Oh dear, that is one can of worms to be opened in another debate. I disagree.

Quote:
That the Church adopted this institution and sanctified it could be, and is, seen by some as itself a violation of church and state.  Marriage laws are already very much a product of the establishemnt of property ownership and inheritance by determining natural lineage.  That remains true to this day.


I can see your point however the direction of this message doesn't sit well with me.

Quote:
In this respect, nothing that I know of (and I have researched this issue fairly extensively) would change about the status of your own marriage.  All granting marriage rights to homosexuals would do is grant them the same rights you already have.


Here is my primary disagreement with you. Here is what I believe in. First of all, I claim no religious preferrence. It is not the "status" of marriage that I am afraid of being changed. It is the definition. To each their own definition of all their own beliefs in life. This is mine:

Marriage does not define property rights. Marriage does not define geograhic anything. Marriage doesn't define ownership of any kind. Marriage, to me, is to love my wife. It is to love her in a way that brings about the creation of new life; new life that is the future. Something of myself and her are passed along in my children. Something of the love I have of her and something of the shared experience from us both is absorbed by my children. Land does not exist. Property does not exist. Only the love we have for each other. This love is defined by our own creation. This creation is a natural occurance. It is by this means that my spirit lives on and so does my wife's. Together we add to the human race and inject some of what we are into the future of this planet. To the law marriage may be some kind of status quo but not to me. Your argument is true and I support it when voting for civil unions. However, no law will tell me that my relationship with my wife is anything related to same sex couples because it isn't. If this country votes in support for a law of this nature with the designation "same-sex marriage" then I will become it's fiercest rival. I completely agree with the term "civil union".

Quote:
If you ask me, it is the revisited height of hypocricy to claim a separation of church and state, while at the same time have so much religious influence in a matter of law as I think this originally was and probably should have remained.


Interesting point. I accept your theory.

Quote:
My seven-year-old son is an American Indian boy who has never had his hair cut, by his own choosing.  It rests in a long braid down his back beyond his waistline.
 

Tell your son I said to be proud of his heritage. If he likes, show him all the places in our constitution that affords special priviledges to any native-american indian. Show him that this country still upholds its laws that were made with his ancestors. His ancestors and your ancient people are highly respected in this country. Tell him, also, that a native american can go to college on scholarships afforded to his proud ancestry. It is good that he is proud of his cultural differences. He should be very proud of a people that once ran free with respect to the earth and all it's creations.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Khaelo
Khaelo


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
posted January 29, 2004 02:43 AM
Edited By: Khaelo on 28 Jan 2004

As far as I know, Peacemaker is absolutely correct on the origins of marriage.  Example: In ancient Greece and Rome, the explicit purpose of marriage was to produce legitimate children and to pass on property.  In Athens, there was a law that a woman with no brothers must marry her uncle or cousin in order to keep her father's property within the family.  If she was already married, she had to divorce her current husband in order to marry the relative.  A man could easily divorce a woman who produced no children, as well.  Marriages were arranged between men and fathers; the bride (often as young as 15 years old) may never have seen her groom (who was typically around 30 years old) before the wedding day.  It was all about paternity and property.  Love had nothing to do with it.

The perception of marriage has changed in time, but the institution has been slow to keep up.
Quote:
Marriage does not define property rights. Marriage does not define geograhic anything. Marriage doesn't define ownership of any kind. Marriage, to me, is to love my wife.

That, I think, is the usual modern definition.    Legally, of course, it does include property rights, as well as next-of-kin rights and such.
Quote:
It is to love her in a way that brings about the creation of new life; new life that is future. Something of myself and her are passed along in my children. Something of the love I have of her and something of the shared experience from us both is absorbed by my children. Land does not exist. Property does not exist. Only the love we have for each other. This love is defined by our own creation. This creation is a natural occurance. It is by this means that my spirit lives on and so does my wife's. Together we add to the human race and inject some of what we are into the future of this planet. To the law marriage may be some kind of status quo but not to me.

This portion confuses me.  Are you saying that your definition of marriage is dependent on the couple producing children?
Quote:
Your argument is true and I support it when voting for civil unions. However, no law will tell me that my relationship with my wife is anything related to same sex couples because it isn't. If this country votes in support for a law of this nature with the designation "same-sex marriage" then I will become it's fiercest rival. I completely agree with the term "civil union".

Sticky, sticky, sticky...  What is the difference between a "civil union" and a "marriage"?  What is the importance of those particular words?

My view:  The law should take one term -- be it "civil union" or "marriage" -- and use it for all couples.  I happen to prefer "civil union," because that places "marriage" completely in the private realm and permits the religious institutions to support various matrimony ceremonies as they please.  Whatever the term, the legal benefits to same-sex and opposite sex couples would be identical.  What the law should not do is what they did in Vermont: designating "civil unions" as a separate and lesser arrangement.  We know that "separate but equal" does not work.  Equality should be complete.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vycka1234
Vycka1234


Known Hero
posted January 29, 2004 07:00 PM

Homosexuality(cant say that in english) depends on psychology not on some hormons or smth. For example if woman dont like men she gets failed with them everytime so she find a good friend like she is and it results as homosexuality. And one more fact sometimes then you are a teenager you can fell that the same sex attracts you.Doctors say that it is normal.Hey dont think that has happened to me i read it in magazine.
P.SL: i am againts gays and lesbians....tottaly.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
redhawk
redhawk


Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
posted January 29, 2004 07:45 PM

I thought about all of your ideas, and beliefs.It is reassuring to know that there are more people out the who don't just accept things the way they are, they question. I thought I might be the only one. and I thankyou Peacemaker for the warm welcome, I was trying to be a gentleman, without sounding like a total git. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman, legally, or biblicly. The only diferance in gay and straight marriage is the child factor.As I said Before I a'm not gay, and it does look as though I support them at times I don't, I support the freedom to make there own choice, without having someone try to shove ther values down there throats. If staight couples can't have children, they adopt. so if gay couples want to have children the should be able to adopt as well. I take people as they are, by there actions, words, and deeds.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted January 29, 2004 08:02 PM

Iíd like to express my positive impression about the posts youíve written. Liberal views on a topic which most people find controversial and feel strongly against it. Iíll just state my opinion as short as I can.

"What does marriage mean now? Is it now a Marxist defined invention to inherit property?"
Sorry, Consis, but you misquoted me on this one (from the ďis America stupidĒ thread). Marx didnít define marriage as ďan invention to inherit propertyĒ, he just pointed out to its origin, as Peacemaker said. The present (different from the past) economical conditions, however, change the original nature of marriage. And donít be too skeptical about Marx. He is a respected figure in philosophy, and many scientists and philosophers give him credit for his prominent role in the historical development in philosophy.

Now, about the topic.
As I said, here, where I come from (the Balkans), thereís a strong negative attitude towards gay people. Itís a taboo. I donít think thereís ever been a gay parade before. There was a brave attempt in Belgrade a few years ago. It was a march for gay rights and it ended bloodily. Several people were injured by a mob of nationalists.
I believe homosexuals should be allowed to get married and maybe even be allowed to adopt children (but not in the society as it is now). But the legal issue is less important then the mental change, the change inside peopleís heads. Even if gay people are granted their rights, on the Balkans, they would still be afraid to show their sexual preference, because society will condemn and reject them.
It is not yet clear whether homosexuality is genetically transmited or influenced by the social surroundings. I think itís more the second one. If gay-couples are allowed to adopt children it is more likely that the child adopted by such family will perceive the image of a gay family being ďmore normalĒ than the heterosexual family. Influencing on the childís sexual preference in this way may be harmful for the child in a society which rejects homosexuals. Thatís way I think adoption of children should be allowed only in very liberal (maybe only utopian) societies (hardly ones in todayís world).

____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
redhawk
redhawk


Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
posted January 29, 2004 08:18 PM

Svarog, you are right in that only in utopia will this be okay, but we do have to start somewere. maybe it sarts with people like us, tring to find a solution together that everyone can and will accept, I know thats not going to happen, But I am hopefull, And I go back to my dreams of utopia.
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Romana
Romana


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
posted January 29, 2004 08:30 PM

The boy who was turned into a girl

I think this is very interesting..

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted January 29, 2004 11:03 PM

Really now
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Peacemaker
Peacemaker


Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
posted January 29, 2004 11:22 PM

Svarog and redhawk, I think your posts are very good, objective expressions of your feelings and stance on this issue.

Svarog, I want to point out that statistically, children raised in gay unions do not present any statistically significant difference in the numbers of children who grow into adulthood as gay.  Either way, the percentage rides right around 10% to 11% according to present statistics.

As for the society in which adoption in gay unions is allowed, it is as with any controvercial social development:  People either have to choose to be willing to stand up for their rights and beliefs, taking into consideration the risks inherent in doing so in their local communities, or they must choose to let the social norms dictate.  Each society's norms are different on this and any topic.  In some societies, the risk factor is greater than in others.  So I guess it boils down to a weighing of those risks by each individual in any given situation / society.  

However, I tend to believe that the braver and more invested people are in advancing their human rights, the more rights will be advanced. Strategies include collectve action, lobbying one's leadership, and a careful analysis of what methods for advancement of the issue at hand are going to be effective versus those which will be counterproductive.  It sounds as though the nature of the society in which the parade occurred made the event more counterproductive than effective, and the individuals affected must regroup and construct more effective methods for advancing their rights.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun.  Any questions?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vycka1234
Vycka1234


Known Hero
posted January 30, 2004 11:12 AM

Hey Svarog and Redhawk i mean no offense, but you are foolish to say that gays can adopt babys are you crazy both of you. Imagine being raised by gays you will become a gay ofcourse, everyone would tease you.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Aculias
Aculias


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
posted January 30, 2004 07:37 PM

Vycka I would find it wise not replying in this thread lol.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 38 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 30 ... 34 35 36 37 38 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0800 seconds