If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Adorable 11-year-old girl reminds everyone that taking away gay people's rights is an idea folks can rally behind regardless of age   (opposingviews.com) divider line 188
    More: Interesting, civil laws, Minnesota House, rally  
•       •       •

15287 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 9:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-27 11:59:26 AM  

MayoSlather: Oh look how adorable she is, and how can you possibly deny the simple wisdom of a child?

This tactic is tired. Advertisers use this strategy everyday to override rational thought and evoke an emotional one. It's cheap, manipulative, and an affront to well reasoned argumentation.


I love the way you say things, can you talk some more?
 
2013-03-27 12:05:40 PM  

Happy Hours: I saw someone on some news program last night from a very poorly named organization - something like the American Freedom League (I don't remember the exact name) arguing against the freedom for gays in the US to get married. He said something about gay marriage being forced on everyone, but unless there is a movement to force me to get married to another man that I don't know about then being against gay marriage is just crazy.


But this is what a lot of people honestly fear. That's why they get so worked up over it, they start to equate gay rights with giving them the right to force themselves on anyone and the rational part of their brain just completely shuts down. The stereotypical gaybashers-in-the-closet obviously exist too, but most people are just so afraid of change that they can only imagine that small changes automatically mean a slippery slope to losing all of their rights to someone else.

If you want to combat the bigotry, you have to understand it. It's not just being a hidebound asshole, most of the time.
 
2013-03-27 12:06:36 PM  

Krymson Tyde: doglover: Krymson Tyde: doglover: nekom: Meanwhile, my 6 year old girl loves her gay aunt and gay uncle, and their respective partners.  Hatred is a learned behavior.

It really isn't. Kids hate EVERYTHING naturally.

Tollerance is the learned behavior. And obviously your girl was raised well.

As the father of 5 year old daughter I respectfully disagree with this assertion.

Babies are scared of everything. By 5 they've learned somewhat.

She has always leaned toward kindness and love. I've honestly never known a nicer person than my kid and I can't take full credit for that. She's just a loving, caring little girl.


This, this, this, this, this, thissy-this....

/my 8yr old daughter leans in the same direction and I could NOT be more proud of her.
 
2013-03-27 12:07:57 PM  
Using children to manipulate others is vile.  Also, an 11 year old girl is only saying what she has been taught and told to say........this is why we don't allow 11 year olds to vote.
 
2013-03-27 12:12:00 PM  
She makes as much sense as anyone else on that side of the argument.
 
2013-03-27 12:12:38 PM  

doglover: Krymson Tyde: doglover: nekom: Meanwhile, my 6 year old girl loves her gay aunt and gay uncle, and their respective partners.  Hatred is a learned behavior.

It really isn't. Kids hate EVERYTHING naturally.

Tollerance is the learned behavior. And obviously your girl was raised well.

As the father of 5 year old daughter I respectfully disagree with this assertion.

Babies are scared of everything. By 5 they've learned somewhat.


Um, no they aren't. Most kids are curious and will get into everything to see what it is. They will also do things to test their parents. At least my kids did, and still do. And yes, Hatred is learned, I would go so far as to say that fear is as well to some degree.
 
2013-03-27 12:16:52 PM  

MmmmBacon: Using your child to make an unpopular political point, then claiming she's the victim of attacks on the Internet, is absolutely despicable! You put your child in the line of fire. You made her a target. And now you claim she is being harmed by such vicious slander? Actually, I agree. You, Homophobic Mom & Dad, have harmed your little girl. She should be placed with a family that actually has her best interests at heart.

Perhaps a loving same-sex set of parents will do the job you have so badly botched up?


That part of the article made my blood boil.
 
2013-03-27 12:22:58 PM  

Dr Dreidel: [s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 500x657]


That picture is so freaking moving.
 
2013-03-27 12:33:31 PM  
So when Obama and the lobs use kids to promote gun control it's ok.  But let a kid talk against LGBT stuff it's wrong. Gotcha, I understand now.
 
2013-03-27 12:35:04 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Gracie's parents must be so proud to have their little girl parroting their ignorance and fear. I'm sure they'll be just as proud in 5 or 10 years when she and her wife get married.


Any your kids must be so proud that their mother assumes that 11 year old girls can't/don't have their own thoughts and opinions.

My daughter was politically a Democrat, with well-thought-out arguments, when she was 10. Then she grew up.
 
2013-03-27 12:41:02 PM  

doglover: nekom: Meanwhile, my 6 year old girl loves her gay aunt and gay uncle, and their respective partners.  Hatred is a learned behavior.

It really isn't. Kids hate EVERYTHING naturally.

Tollerance is the learned behavior. And obviously your girl was raised well.


Tabula rasa, FTW.  My kids ask questions about things that are different.  Answer them well and they grow up to be decent human beings.
 
2013-03-27 12:48:53 PM  
How about the father be a MAN and not hide behind his 11-year-old daughter, spitting poisonous vitriol in her ear.

What kind of adult parades his own little girl in front of people and the media to talk about things she cannot truly understand? It's tasteless, disgusting and sickening to see this sort of abuse draped on this child's shoulders. She does not yet have the critical thinking to understand rights secured to us by law or what the United States stands for (liberty and justice for all). One day I hope she breaks the mental shackles her parents are attempting to lock her in with and is able to fully iterate to them just how wrong it was that she was used as a pawn at such an early age.
 
2013-03-27 12:51:03 PM  
Now that's just low.They're trying to trump "the letter..."
 
2013-03-27 12:52:29 PM  
The part I have trouble with is this- by definition, what makes a dad? What makes a mom?

If this little girl says every kid needs a mom and dad, that's assuming she lives in 1960, when Dad came home from making money at the office and Mom had a roast in the oven. That's farking sexist.

My friend is a stay at home dad. His wife is a very successful neurosurgeon. He also has no sense of direction and is a big teddy bear, meanwhile she's the smartest, most tough as nails woman I've ever met.

So what if she remarried a man like herself? Career driven and strong? Those kids would essentially have two dads, by this twerp's definition.
 
2013-03-27 12:55:20 PM  
11-year-old girl: "Since every child needs a mom and a dad to be born, I don't think we can change that children need a mom and a dad. I believe God made it that way. "

God took my father in a car accident when I was four.  I don't think he cares that some people don't have a mother and father.
 
2013-03-27 01:04:23 PM  
interesting discussion...
 
2013-03-27 01:07:40 PM  

aagrajag: xtalman: aagrajag: wingding: I guess tollerance for her opinion is unacceptable.

She's 11. She doesn't have an opinion. She has an ability to parrot her parents' opinions.

You know how I know you have never been around 11 year olds....

They can have pretty strong opinions, of course their opinions are based on what the adults around them say but they can be very strong willed.  As they get older and learn to read and find out other views on things their opinions can be become different from their parents.  I can only hope this is true of most kids in a good sense.

The vehemence with which they state those opinions does not relate to the extent to which they've actually thought them out. Of course, that's also applicable to most adults.

//teacher, actually


True.
 
2013-03-27 01:12:32 PM  

kiwimoogle84: The part I have trouble with is this- by definition, what makes a dad? What makes a mom?

If this little girl says every kid needs a mom and dad, that's assuming she lives in 1960, when Dad came home from making money at the office and Mom had a roast in the oven. That's farking sexist.

My friend is a stay at home dad. His wife is a very successful neurosurgeon. He also has no sense of direction and is a big teddy bear, meanwhile she's the smartest, most tough as nails woman I've ever met.

So what if she remarried a man like herself? Career driven and strong? Those kids would essentially have two dads, by this twerp's definition.


It makes sense, in a way.  Kids need a positive role model that they can identify with(ideally, exposure to the variety that is humanity), and as it happens, a lot of the time that's an adult of the same sex.

But suggesting that it must be a parent is ludicrous and where these people fail so hard. Aunts, uncles, older cousins and family friends can serve the same purpose.

It's the same principle that ends up screwing kids over that get home schooled.  Sure, they're not all screwed up, but a great many are because they're robbed of social exposure.

As a side note, I don't think a male bread winner is sexist, a lot of people fall naturally into that archetype of a relationship and are happy.  It's assuming that's the only way to do things that is bigoted.
 
2013-03-27 01:17:28 PM  
This country was formed on the basis that it would favor no religion over the other.  That our laws would be not be based on one religion over the other.  Our "found fathers were deitist (sp) not necessarily 'Christian'". I have heard that gay marriage will bring down straight marriage (although I can't see how straight marraige can get any lower), but I have yet to hear an explanation as to HOW a gay marriage will affect straight marraige.  Marriage is a civil issue, a contractual issue between two consenting adults.  I don't see where a contract must be between adults of the opposite sex.  So if two consenting adults enter into a binding contract that is allowed by law, what they do in their bedroom is no ones business but their own.  Marriage that is sanctioned by a church or not sanctioned by a church is none of the government's business.  So this whole "gay" marriage should really be a non-issue.  Although, we do have so many religious folks who believe their religion is the only right one and we should all bow to that religion...however, I see religion as a cult and as cults they brainwash you and tell you what to believe.  Once you are a member of a religion you lose the ability to think for yourself.  I prefer to think for myself and thereby reviewing all opinions and then making my own decisions.  Opinions are like assholes, we all have them and the usuall stink!!
 
2013-03-27 01:18:26 PM  
If other people's opinions on the validity of other people's family were given the weight they deserved, gay marriage would already be legal.

And now, this girl's father:

 media.comicvine.com
 
2013-03-27 01:33:39 PM  
When I was 11, I hated Bill Clinton and thought he should be impeached. Why? I didn't really know, but my dad was insistent on it, so that's what I believed. It took a few years before I looked back and thought, "Boy... That was pretty dumb."
 
2013-03-27 01:36:52 PM  

Spad31: AbbeySomeone: Gracie's parents must be so proud to have their little girl parroting their ignorance and fear. I'm sure they'll be just as proud in 5 or 10 years when she and her wife get married.

Uh...she'd be 16 or 21, respectively. Anyone marrying that young needs a good smack.


Where were you when I got married at 21? That smack came ten years too late.
 
2013-03-27 01:45:39 PM  
"We haven't had any physical threats, but we've had some rather colorful comments about my 11-year-old. I've been monitoring it to keep my family safe and have a heads-up on it. It's really shameful the things that people will say, hiding behind an Internet alias."

And its also really shameful what some people say out in public.

In any case, did Mr. Thoughtful here not understand that when you use your daughter as a pawn for your own cause, there might be some blowback? You cant trot out your daughter into the public like a show pony and then expect privacy or hide behind the "buy she is just 11" crap.
 
2013-03-27 01:46:05 PM  

omeganuepsilon: kiwimoogle84: The part I have trouble with is this- by definition, what makes a dad? What makes a mom?

If this little girl says every kid needs a mom and dad, that's assuming she lives in 1960, when Dad came home from making money at the office and Mom had a roast in the oven. That's farking sexist.

My friend is a stay at home dad. His wife is a very successful neurosurgeon. He also has no sense of direction and is a big teddy bear, meanwhile she's the smartest, most tough as nails woman I've ever met.

So what if she remarried a man like herself? Career driven and strong? Those kids would essentially have two dads, by this twerp's definition.

It makes sense, in a way.  Kids need a positive role model that they can identify with(ideally, exposure to the variety that is humanity), and as it happens, a lot of the time that's an adult of the same sex.

But suggesting that it must be a parent is ludicrous and where these people fail so hard. Aunts, uncles, older cousins and family friends can serve the same purpose.

It's the same principle that ends up screwing kids over that get home schooled.  Sure, they're not all screwed up, but a great many are because they're robbed of social exposure.

As a side note, I don't think a male bread winner is sexist, a lot of people fall naturally into that archetype of a relationship and are happy.  It's assuming that's the only way to do things that is bigoted.


Oh I would have ABSOLUTELY no problem with keeping hot meals ready and prancing around in pearls and high heels while Mr. Kiwi brought home the cash, but that fits our personalities. He is more masculine and "take care of everything." You hit the nail on the head- thinking that's the ONLY way to do things. Exactly.

I know a lesbian couple- one works in web design and makes lots of money and handles the bills, while the other works part time at a florist and wears lots of pink. Any child of theirs would have a masculine and feminine role model. And they have been together over a decade. Most marriages these days don't last that long.

It just irks me that some people make that argument, and it's usually very religious people, saying kids need a mother and father. But that means that now, you're forcing people to be one half of a whole, instead of one half of whatever works best for them. I don't like these kinds of stereotypes, because again, that would make my one friend feel like less of a man because he chose diapers over an office.

CSS- my younger sister and her husband are amazingly similar. Both emotional, both devoid of street smarts, both work a little to bring in cash. They both cook and clean, and they are a wonderful couple. I see them as a Venn diagram- they overlap more than 80%. It's not 50/50. But they have two children and they work beautifully. I dare anyone to say they need to fit a type in order for those kids to grow up right.
 
2013-03-27 01:52:01 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJhRYYjHThI

You've got to be carefully taught.   Looks like her parents (or at least her dad) did a great job!
 
2013-03-27 01:53:33 PM  
I'm sure the retired racing greyhound my ladyfriend and I would like to adopt when we're married/civil partnered (or the Upland Moa we joke about cloning) can deal with having two moms.

/seriously though, reviving moas would be awesome
//they're like real life Chocobos
 
2013-03-27 01:58:43 PM  

Strix occidentalis: I'm sure the retired racing greyhound my ladyfriend and I would like to adopt when we're married/civil partnered (or the Upland Moa we joke about cloning) can deal with having two moms.

/seriously though, reviving moas would be awesome
//they're like real life Chocobos


You had me at chocobo.

Are they color coded for where they can travel? Do you race them?

/details are needed
 
2013-03-27 02:00:56 PM  
She's kinda hot...
 
2013-03-27 02:17:08 PM  
I'm a heterosexual male.  I was born in the late '70's.  I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.  I equally strongly suspect the same would be true if that right were given any time between the day I was born and now, and I doubt very highly that I'll "turn" gay if and when (read: when) that right is given.

Also, I don't anticipate my right to get married being compromised by giving the same right to homosexuals, and frankly I'm not sure what grave and imminent threat it's being "defended" from.

If there's something I'm not understanding here, I would love for some kind Farker to steer my in the right direction.  (I've been wrong on this very site before, so I'd appreciate the help, thanks!)

/Yes, these points have all been made.  I just genuinely don't understand the argument, at least on the level it's being debated.
 
2013-03-27 02:21:07 PM  
ME.Steer me.

/and I USED preview.  Batting 1.000!
 
2013-03-27 02:24:32 PM  

ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male. I was born in the late '70's. I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.


Nope.  You see, when you legitimize homosexual relationships, men and women who would otherwise procreate choose instead to have hot, gay, non-procreative sex, so chances are you wouldn't be here at all.

am i doing it right?
 
2013-03-27 02:30:56 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Strix occidentalis: I'm sure the retired racing greyhound my ladyfriend and I would like to adopt when we're married/civil partnered (or the Upland Moa we joke about cloning) can deal with having two moms.

/seriously though, reviving moas would be awesome
//they're like real life Chocobos

You had me at chocobo.

Are they color coded for where they can travel? Do you race them?

/details are needed


We do race ostriches, and moas were muuuuch bigger.  As for color-coding... we can probably engineer that in.
 
2013-03-27 02:31:48 PM  

ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male.  I was born in the late '70's.  I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.  I equally strongly suspect the same would be true if that right were given any time between the day I was born and now, and I doubt very highly that I'll "turn" gay if and when (read: when) that right is given.

Also, I don't anticipate my right to get married being compromised by giving the same right to homosexuals, and frankly I'm not sure what grave and imminent threat it's being "defended" from.

If there's something I'm not understanding here, I would love for some kind Farker to steer my in the right direction.  (I've been wrong on this very site before, so I'd appreciate the help, thanks!)

/Yes, these points have all been made.  I just genuinely don't understand the argument, at least on the level it's being debated.


If gay people get married, all heterosexual marriages become null and void.  They signed up to be a member of a "man+woman" club, not a "whomever+whomever" club.  Their licensing agreement never mentioned "the definition of marriage can be changed at any time".  And now that everyone will be officially single, it will invoke one of the greatest paperwork nightmares of all time.  Insurance policies will be cancelled.  Titles and deeds to cars and houses will be fought over in the courts for hundreds of years.  We'll have to let murderers and rapists go free so the courts can handle all of the domestic property redistribution from all of these annulled marriages.  Parents will stop loving their children, since every child in America will officially be a bastard.  "They can just get remarried" you say.  They can, but they won't.  They won't want to be associated with this hippy-dippy free-for-all love fest.

I hope you're happy.  You just destroyed America.
 
2013-03-27 02:32:25 PM  
msnbcmedia1.msn.com
I see a grate future in her eyes.
 
2013-03-27 02:34:20 PM  

ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male.  I was born in the late '70's.  I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.  I equally strongly suspect the same would be true if that right were given any time between the day I was born and now, and I doubt very highly that I'll "turn" gay if and when (read: when) that right is given.

Also, I don't anticipate my right to get married being compromised by giving the same right to homosexuals, and frankly I'm not sure what grave and imminent threat it's being "defended" from.

If there's something I'm not understanding here, I would love for some kind Farker to steer my in the right direction.  (I've been wrong on this very site before, so I'd appreciate the help, thanks!)

/Yes, these points have all been made.  I just genuinely don't understand the argument, at least on the level it's being debated.


The argument my Mormon friends make, is that it would force churches and religious adoption places to either act against their beliefs, which are protected by constitutional law, or get sued for discrimination. It's a fair argument, but I counter with- if you want to be self funded and not take money from the gov to run your business, then by all means, turn away who you like. But if you're going to be run with government grants, you have to respect anti discrimination laws. Take your pick.
 
2013-03-27 02:36:13 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Any child of theirs would have a masculine and feminine role model.


I don't necessarily think that's enough.(It may sound bad, but bear with me for the whole post please)  A male child may have a hard time confiding in either female parent, or visa versa, especially if the child were straight.

If two men had a daughter, who does she seek advice from about her period, or bra issues?

There is a certain amount sexism inherent in psychology, in that we tend to be more relaxed and at ease with people of the same sex(Even as adults, same sex locker rooms, same sex nurses must be present, witnessing of pee tests, etc) as the potential experience there is the same.

It's good to learn to over come that as much as possible, but when it's an intimate issue a child should at least have the option.  Children are not necessarily able to to think it through and be ok with it as adults are, and at that time, dealing with the specific issue is more important than teaching the child the right way to treat people(which by that age the kid is likely already ok with it)

I hope that doesn't come off as some sort of bigotry, it's really not.  It's a temporary tolerance in the face of what may be a larger problem.  Very temporary, they've the whole rest of their up bringing to come to terms with accepting other people, but that moment when they're really in need, it should be available.

Also, I don't buy into ascribing masculine and feminine archetypes for personalities or activities.  I don't think it's any more healthy than saying "men's work" or "women's work", because it implies the same concept....it just sounds a bit nicer.  I just call it "work".
Most of those archetypes can be discarded.  Cooking is not "feminine", nor is child rearing, color preference, or a million other little things(ie toy preferences). Being timid, or strong willed, aggressive, etc.  None of them are necessarily belonging to any given sex, and deeming them masculine and feminine only propogates prejudice.

About the only way I can think of it remaining useful, having a justified use, is physical descriptors.  A feminine male is more lithe and graceful.  a masculine female is more sturdy and strong.  In that case, it is inherent to what, across most species is, is a physical aspect of the sexes.
 
2013-03-27 02:36:13 PM  

stonicus: ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male.  I was born in the late '70's.  I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.  I equally strongly suspect the same would be true if that right were given any time between the day I was born and now, and I doubt very highly that I'll "turn" gay if and when (read: when) that right is given.

Also, I don't anticipate my right to get married being compromised by giving the same right to homosexuals, and frankly I'm not sure what grave and imminent threat it's being "defended" from.

If there's something I'm not understanding here, I would love for some kind Farker to steer my in the right direction.  (I've been wrong on this very site before, so I'd appreciate the help, thanks!)

/Yes, these points have all been made.  I just genuinely don't understand the argument, at least on the level it's being debated.

If gay people get married, all heterosexual marriages become null and void.  They signed up to be a member of a "man+woman" club, not a "whomever+whomever" club.  Their licensing agreement never mentioned "the definition of marriage can be changed at any time".  And now that everyone will be officially single, it will invoke one of the greatest paperwork nightmares of all time.  Insurance policies will be cancelled.  Titles and deeds to cars and houses will be fought over in the courts for hundreds of years.  We'll have to let murderers and rapists go free so the courts can handle all of the domestic property redistribution from all of these annulled marriages.  Parents will stop loving their children, since every child in America will officially be a bastard.  "They can just get remarried" you say.  They can, but they won't.  They won't want to be associated with this hippy-dippy free-for-all love fest.

I hope you're happy.  You just destroyed America.


*applause*

That was beautiful. Truly moving.
 
2013-03-27 02:37:23 PM  
I think we should have all our rights and laws decided by people who are 11 years old.
 
2013-03-27 02:39:40 PM  

omeganuepsilon: kiwimoogle84: Any child of theirs would have a masculine and feminine role model.

I don't necessarily think that's enough.(It may sound bad, but bear with me for the whole post please)  A male child may have a hard time confiding in either female parent, or visa versa, especially if the child were straight.

If two men had a daughter, who does she seek advice from about her period, or bra issues?

There is a certain amount sexism inherent in psychology, in that we tend to be more relaxed and at ease with people of the same sex(Even as adults, same sex locker rooms, same sex nurses must be present, witnessing of pee tests, etc) as the potential experience there is the same.

It's good to learn to over come that as much as possible, but when it's an intimate issue a child should at least have the option.  Children are not necessarily able to to think it through and be ok with it as adults are, and at that time, dealing with the specific issue is more important than teaching the child the right way to treat people(which by that age the kid is likely already ok with it)

I hope that doesn't come off as some sort of bigotry, it's really not.  It's a temporary tolerance in the face of what may be a larger problem.  Very temporary, they've the whole rest of their up bringing to come to terms with accepting other people, but that moment when they're really in need, it should be available.

Also, I don't buy into ascribing masculine and feminine archetypes for personalities or activities.  I don't think it's any more healthy than saying "men's work" or "women's work", because it implies the same concept....it just sounds a bit nicer.  I just call it "work".
Most of those archetypes can be discarded.  Cooking is not "feminine", nor is child rearing, color preference, or a million other little things(ie toy preferences). Being timid, or strong willed, aggressive, etc.  None of them are necessarily belonging to any given sex, and deeming them masculine and feminine only propogates prejudice.

About the only way I can think of it remaining useful, having a justified use, is physical descriptors.  A feminine male is more lithe and graceful.  a masculine female is more sturdy and strong.  In that case, it is inherent to what, across most species is, is a physical aspect of the sexes.


A rational, reasonable argument on Fark? DEAR GOD MAN.

I see your main point, and I'll ask my friend Sara which of her two FABULOUS fathers she asked about that stuff when she was younger.

But your point can be invalidated by mentioning single parents. Ify mom had died and I was raised by my father, I'd have the same birds and bees issue, would I not? I'd probably call my grandma or aunt, which is likely what these kids might do.

You do make a good argument that made me think though.
 
2013-03-27 02:45:59 PM  
Unmoved, the House committee voted in favor of the gay marriage bill and sent it to the full House.

What!? They didn't let the words some ignorant adults prompted an 11-year-old girl to say influence their decision. Way to set that girl up for failure, by the way, dickholes. Hopefully she doesn't feel like she personally let all the little kids with two mommies down.

Obviously what nobody has taught her is that what is beneficial about having two loving parents is not that there is a penis and a vagina under the same roof, but that a child is able to witness, first hand, the give and take that goes on in a successful relationship; how to work together to conquer common problems and accomplish common goals; how to solve problems by utilizing social ties; learning that sometimes you must sacrifice something you want or want to do for the sake of your partner's desires. It's about learning to live together as adults in a healthy, productive way--not about inserting tab A into slot B.
 
2013-03-27 02:52:46 PM  

kiwimoogle84: But your point can be invalidated by mentioning single parents. Ify mom had died and I was raised by my father, I'd have the same birds and bees issue, would I not? I'd probably call my grandma or aunt, which is likely what these kids might do.

You do make a good argument that made me think though.


Well, it goes inline with my original statement, aunts uncles etc, they can all count.  Maybe I should have referenced that, but it's a whole concept, not a different argument altogether, so it's not invalidated as such.

Some families do not have that, and I brought that up with home schooled kids.

No kid should be sheltered to the point where he/she misses out on that exposure.  And I don't mean seeing the 1 male once a week at the grocery store either. I mean honest to goodness friends and family.  It's real and frequent social exposure that's bigotry busting, not sparse glimpses.

A lesbian couple with a kid that doesn't let their kid hang out with or get to know straights, is no better than a christian male/female couple that likewise restricts who their kid has access to.(well, statistically speaking, their religious views, if any, would likely be less poisonous, but that's beside the main point)

Not implying any specific couple does that, but you know it's likely that it's happened.(your example just happened to remind me of the concept)

I don't hold anything against single parents in general either.  It can be tougher on them to make sure the child has the right resources(that's a pretty apt way of putting it I suppose) to help deal with their problems, but not impossible.
 
2013-03-27 02:53:22 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male. I was born in the late '70's. I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.

Nope.  You see, when you legitimize homosexual relationships, men and women who would otherwise procreate choose instead to have hot, gay, non-procreative sex, so chances are you wouldn't be here at all.

am i doing it right?


Would I "turn" gay after all, then, and I just don't know it yet?  The only thing stopping me from sucking dicks is this law?  I've got to tell you, man...*looks into statutue of limitations* I've fractured the occassional law here and there.  I have a feeling that I'm the type of person who would suck dicks if I wanted to, regardless of laws.  (I KNOW that applies to eating pussy.  That was illegal?  Ah well.)
 
2013-03-27 02:55:15 PM  

stonicus: ten foiled hats: I'm a heterosexual male.  I was born in the late '70's.  I strongly suspect if homosexuals were given the right to marry a thousand years before I was born, the day before I was born, or any time in between, I'd still be a heterosexual male.  I equally strongly suspect the same would be true if that right were given any time between the day I was born and now, and I doubt very highly that I'll "turn" gay if and when (read: when) that right is given.

Also, I don't anticipate my right to get married being compromised by giving the same right to homosexuals, and frankly I'm not sure what grave and imminent threat it's being "defended" from.

If there's something I'm not understanding here, I would love for some kind Farker to steer my in the right direction.  (I've been wrong on this very site before, so I'd appreciate the help, thanks!)

/Yes, these points have all been made.  I just genuinely don't understand the argument, at least on the level it's being debated.

If gay people get married, all heterosexual marriages become null and void.  They signed up to be a member of a "man+woman" club, not a "whomever+whomever" club.  Their licensing agreement never mentioned "the definition of marriage can be changed at any time".  And now that everyone will be officially single, it will invoke one of the greatest paperwork nightmares of all time.  Insurance policies will be cancelled.  Titles and deeds to cars and houses will be fought over in the courts for hundreds of years.  We'll have to let murderers and rapists go free so the courts can handle all of the domestic property redistribution from all of these annulled marriages.  Parents will stop loving their children, since every child in America will officially be a bastard.  "They can just get remarried" you say.  They can, but they won't.  They won't want to be associated with this hippy-dippy free-for-all love fest.

I hope you're happy.  You just destroyed America.


I may get it now, thanks.

/Seriously with the thanks.  Good stuff!
 
Ant
2013-03-27 02:55:31 PM  

TaterTot_HotDish: Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazis as much as anybody, but can we *please* stop trying to ridicule people's views by pointing out some aspect of their appearance we find objectionable?  This shiat cuts both ways -- for instance if I said that hey, nobody should listen to Rosa Parks talk about tolerance because she had cankles?  If we do it, they can do it.


This. Knock that shiat off!
 
2013-03-27 03:01:11 PM  

kiwimoogle84: A rational, reasonable argument on Fark? DEAR GOD MAN.


You really moved me with your breasts for bills thread, so I farkied you so as to specifically be nice to you.

But the gay vs straight and some similar arguments get on my nerves.  Liberals can just as easily fall into the same judgement traps that the conservatives do, so I try to walk people through what's rational and what's not.(sometimes I slip on occasion though, or phrase something badly, such is life).

Unfortunately, one side's extremist's or the other will call me gay/straight because I don't share the extremist view, and they ignore the content of the post altogether.  They came in here to argue, and by god/FSM, they WILL!
To some I've garnered quite the reputation, cop hater(or bootlicker in seperate threads), misogynist, racist, etc, by such people.

Sure, arguing an be fun, but it also gets old.  Glad you appreciate it and are willing to share in rational discourse. Maybe we'll set an example for others?  Re-vitalize fark's good old days where we shared information instead of insults?

/not likely
 
2013-03-27 03:02:49 PM  

omeganuepsilon: kiwimoogle84: Any child of theirs would have a masculine and feminine role model.

I don't necessarily think that's enough.(It may sound bad, but bear with me for the whole post please)  A male child may have a hard time confiding in either female parent, or visa versa, especially if the child were straight.

If two men had a daughter, who does she seek advice from about her period, or bra issues?

There is a certain amount sexism inherent in psychology, in that we tend to be more relaxed and at ease with people of the same sex(Even as adults, same sex locker rooms, same sex nurses must be present, witnessing of pee tests, etc) as the potential experience there is the same.

It's good to learn to over come that as much as possible, but when it's an intimate issue a child should at least have the option.  Children are not necessarily able to to think it through and be ok with it as adults are, and at that time, dealing with the specific issue is more important than teaching the child the right way to treat people(which by that age the kid is likely already ok with it)

I hope that doesn't come off as some sort of bigotry, it's really not.  It's a temporary tolerance in the face of what may be a larger problem.  Very temporary, they've the whole rest of their up bringing to come to terms with accepting other people, but that moment when they're really in need, it should be available.

Also, I don't buy into ascribing masculine and feminine archetypes for personalities or activities.  I don't think it's any more healthy than saying "men's work" or "women's work", because it implies the same concept....it just sounds a bit nicer.  I just call it "work".
Most of those archetypes can be discarded.  Cooking is not "feminine", nor is child rearing, color preference, or a million other little things(ie toy preferences). Being timid, or strong willed, aggressive, etc.  None of them are necessarily belonging to any given sex, and deeming them masculine and feminine only propog ...


It is a good point, as mentioned above, but I just think with the single parent issues, also mentioned above, as well as the atrocious parenting skills displayed by SOME heterosexuals (see Fark any ol' day), homosexual parents might have as good a chance as many heterosexual ones.

It's gonna be tough all over anywhere, and it's a thorny issue, and again, point taken.
 
2013-03-27 03:04:52 PM  
"girl reminds everyone that taking away gay people's rights..."

Based on the article the right of gay marriage has not yet been granted - therefore nothing is being taken away at this time.

Based on this logic any thing that anyone wants can be classified as a right that is being removed from them.
 
2013-03-27 03:08:39 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Because, when you're looking for advice on sex and happiness an 11 year old's advice is king.

....f*cking stupid.Who gives a sh*t what other people think? If you love someone, and you're attracted to them that's life. People who don't understand that can take a long walk off a short pier. What happens between consenting adults is their damn business. Not yours. Not mine.


But the homosexuals never let it go aat just this, they want ypunger and younger sex partners. The left wants no age of consent no rules no law no morality.
 
2013-03-27 03:12:10 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: indarwinsshadow: Because, when you're looking for advice on sex and happiness an 11 year old's advice is king.

....f*cking stupid.Who gives a sh*t what other people think? If you love someone, and you're attracted to them that's life. People who don't understand that can take a long walk off a short pier. What happens between consenting adults is their damn business. Not yours. Not mine.

But the homosexuals never let it go aat just this, they want ypunger and younger sex partners. The left wants no age of consent no rules no law no morality.


That sounds like projection from Catholic priests...
 
2013-03-27 03:15:02 PM  

omeganuepsilon: kiwimoogle84: A rational, reasonable argument on Fark? DEAR GOD MAN.

You really moved me with your breasts for bills thread, so I farkied you so as to specifically be nice to you.

But the gay vs straight and some similar arguments get on my nerves.  Liberals can just as easily fall into the same judgement traps that the conservatives do, so I try to walk people through what's rational and what's not.(sometimes I slip on occasion though, or phrase something badly, such is life).

Unfortunately, one side's extremist's or the other will call me gay/straight because I don't share the extremist view, and they ignore the content of the post altogether.  They came in here to argue, and by god/FSM, they WILL!
To some I've garnered quite the reputation, cop hater(or bootlicker in seperate threads), misogynist, racist, etc, by such people.

Sure, arguing an be fun, but it also gets old.  Glad you appreciate it and are willing to share in rational discourse. Maybe we'll set an example for others?  Re-vitalize fark's good old days where we shared information instead of insults?

/not likely


Yeah, I'm waiting for some troll to tell me to get back in the kitchen, and tits or GTFO.

I honestly see both sides, and I fit nowhere. I am absolutely for gay rights, which pisses off my conservative friends, and MAJORLY against elective abortions, which pisses off my liberal friends. So I'm used to having these kinds of debates constantly.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report