CNN.com: 'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

[Predicto]

It's your opinion. It's not the truth.

Homosexuals have been persecuted for at least over 1500 years facing imprisonment, mutilation, and death as punishments. I haven't checked lately but I'm pretty sure there are countries that still follow Sharia Law and if that's the case you can be put to death in those countries technically for "homosexual acts". Why is that not comparable in the slightest?

Because Black is Beautiful and homos are gross. Duh.

[Bang]

Ah well, I gave it my one try for the month.

~Bang

[#98QBKiller]

Ah well, I gave it my one try for the month.

~Bang

Tomorrow is July.

[PokerPacker]

Hey, I think I'm probably the loudest advocate for gay rights on this board. But I have to admit that my gut says that a child being raised by gay parents will have a tougher life, all other things being equal.

Frankly, I'd say the same thing about kids raised by interracial parents, or parents of a differed race from the child.

I don't like that fact. I wish it weren't true.

I also recognize that it's not the parent's fault, either. Kids in such families will have a tougher time, because of the way society treats such families.

But it's a fact that society discriminates against gays. Therefore odds are that the gay parents won't do as well in life as theoretically identical straight parents. And their children will be hurt by association.

I have a big problem with society making a blanket decision that gays can't adopt, period. But to me, if society considers the parent's orientation as a factor, then that's no more discrimination that it is when a life insurance company charges higher rates for blacks because statistically they don't live as long.

perhaps it would be harder due to society to have gay parents than straight parents, but the decision between gay parents and no parents isn't a decision at all.

[ljs]

Don't look now, Larry. You got a chance to turn the lass. She's a flirtin' and winkin' at you. (and if I'm reading the subtext properly there was even a hair flip as she was typing)

haha, that is funny (However, I was making the point that it's funny he said htat and I'm the "out" one on here.)

Yeah if I was blind and ignorant or just blatantly trying to be dumb I guess I couldn't tell that man with man and woman with woman deviates from the norm and what is natural.

.

Honest question for ya Dave...with what you are saying, do you believe that a man/woman couple who can not concieve "naturally" then should not try to have babies? Just curious how you feel about that.

perhaps it would be harder due to society to have gay parents than straight parents, but the decision between gay parents and no parents isn't a decision at all.

yes, agreed.

[Larry]

Ah well, I gave it my one try for the month.

~Bang

=====> Taken out of context.

[Larry]

haha, that is funny (However, I was making the point that it's funny he said htat and I'm the "out" one on here.)

Hey, I said "loudest", not "most qualified" or "best looking".

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Hey, I said "loudest", not "most qualified" or "best looking".

Larry, just offer her White Castle burgers and she'll be like putty in your hands.

[TheLongshot]

lastly, get the darned federal government out of both the marriage and child adoption business!

Um, the Federal Government isn't in the child adoption business. The last Federal law that was passed about child adoption was back in 1980 and was repealed in 2006.

As for marriage, Obama would love to get the Federal Government out of that business as well.

[Box76]

It's your opinion. It's not the truth.

Homosexuals have been persecuted for at least over 1500 years facing imprisonment, mutilation, and death as punishments. I haven't checked lately but I'm pretty sure there are countries that still follow Sharia Law and if that's the case you can be put to death in those countries technically for "homosexual acts". Why is that not comparable in the slightest?

I think this article will help with any confusion.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/06/barbara-kay-african-americans-shouldn-t-feel-guilty-for-voting-against-gay-marriage.aspx

[Burgold]

Hey, I said "loudest", not "most qualified" or "best looking".

Hey, I tried for ya dude.

(Glad you both took it in the spirit it was intended)

[XsamhainX_999]

I think this article will help with any confusion.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/06/barbara-kay-african-americans-shouldn-t-feel-guilty-for-voting-against-gay-marriage.aspx

Sorry, that didn't help at all.

To say "don't insult us, you don't have it as bad as we did" is a horrible way to approach this issue.

The only "advantage" homosexuals have had in their history of discrimination is their ability to hide who they are. Which must be a horrible way to live.

The author makes comparisons about what homosexuals are going through now (with gay marriage) to African American slavery. That's not a fair comparison. She acts like homosexuals have not been persecuted throughout history.

In the end though, what's the point of a "we've had it worse" argument?

[Bang]

Well, they do have that whole "doubling the wardrobe" thing going for them.

~Bang

[Predicto]

I think this article will help with any confusion.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/06/barbara-kay-african-americans-shouldn-t-feel-guilty-for-voting-against-gay-marriage.aspx

That article is useless.

"Hey, I got kicked in the nads. You only got punched in the face. I had grounds to complain about what was done to me, but you should just shut up and take it. After all, it is worse being kicked in the nads, so face-punching is just fine and dandy."

[Predicto]

In the end though, what's the point of a "we've had it worse" argument?

It lets black people be bigots without being bothered by their conscience. (See Dave, Navy.)

[NavyDave]

Are you really, really, really high when you post? I can understand about 10% of your posts.

Strange I attempt to make my posts so simple even liberal mental midgets can comprehend them.

[Conn]

Strange I attempt to make my posts so simple even liberal mental midgets can comprehend them.

Well that's very big of you, sir.

[Larry]

The author makes comparisons about what homosexuals are going through now (with gay marriage) to African American slavery. That's not a fair comparison. She acts like homosexuals have not been persecuted throughout history.

Yeah, I was admiring the "Blacks, 100 years ago, had it worse than gays have it, today." "logic".

[ACW]

Yeah, I was admiring the "Blacks, 100 years ago, had it worse than gays have it, today." "logic".

That's true :whoknows:

[Box76]

Yeah, I was admiring the "Blacks, 100 years ago, had it worse than gays have it, today." "logic".

'Logic' is hard to refute.

[Madison Redskin]

Strange I attempt to make my posts so simple even liberal mental midgets can comprehend them.

Keep working on it. You've learned to spell and, one day, you'll learn how to form coherent arguments.

[gbear]

"Beside the true discrimination blacks have suffered, the lack of a symbolic piece of paper in an otherwise unencumbered life is as insulting as moaning and groaning about your sniffles to a cancer survivor." from the article

Otherwise unencombered? We had a post a while back on the sheer number of rights that go along with marriage. What about the people put to death in other countries? What about the hazing and abuse that regularly happens here? What about the comfort of being able to say "I love him or her" in front of friends and family? What about the right to raise a kid (trying to get back on the original topic), etc. The arguement from the article is akin to saying the Black people were marching simply because they no longer wanted to sit in the back of the bus. I honestly feel those who can't recognize discrimination for what it is will always have a hard time recognizing the sheer breadth of its impact.

[#98QBKiller]

Yeah, I was admiring the "Blacks, 100 years ago, had it worse than gays have it, today." "logic".

That's true :whoknows:

It's true but it's not a convincing way to try and prove that you think blacks have had it worse than gays historically.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Keep working on it. You've learned to spell and, one day, you'll learn how to form coherent arguments.

:silly:

[Larry]

Actually, the thing that most gets to me about the "blacks have it worse" claims is that even if you ignore the utter stupidity of arguing that "discrimination is OK, as long as it's not as bad as . . . ", is the fact that at least for the last few decades, it hasn't even been true.

That's why the folks trying to justify why they support discrimination have to go back and pull up 100 year old offenses.

Yep, there used to be Jim Crow laws. But they got overturned a long time ago. Which is why the people who support discrimination are now putting Jim Crow into their Constitutions.

Twice in the last five years, the US Congress has considered the option of amending the US Constitution for the purpose of

preventing

a minority group from being treated equally by the US Government. (This Amendment would also have specifically prohibited any state government from granting equal treatment, either.) In both cases, the measure was filibustered successfully in the Senate (although in both cases, a majority of the Senate voted to end the filibuster. They simply didn't get 60 votes.)

In both cases, the House had to change their rules in order to force a vote on the amendment, and when they voted, a

majority

of the House voted to pass the first

Un

-Equal rights Amendment in the history of the US Constitution.

:secret:The minority group which the US Congress wanted to make discrimination against a Constitutional Mandate, wasn't blacks.

I also often find myself remembering something I saw on 60 Minutes, probably 5-10 years ago.

They were interviewing a police officer who'd been assigned to do an undercover operation. Seems somebody was claiming that gays in Houston were being targeted for being assaulted.

The cop figured that this was a political assignment. Go through the motions so that some politician could say the cops were doing something. But he grumbled under his breath, and began setting up his team of officers to become undercover gays.

(He mentioned that once the real gays figured out that the cops weren't trolling to try to arrest gays for being gay, then they became very helpful, and gave the cops lots of suggestions as to how they could look more gay. Said it with a straight (no pun intended) face, too.)

So the undercover cops began hanging out in Houston's gay bars, then walking out of the bar, alone.

Within the first week, every single one of his 10 officers had been assaulted, multiple times. Within the first 2 weeks 17 of 20 officers had needed medical treatment for injuries received.

He stated that the typical perpetrators for these crimes was a group of 3-4 young men, who had driven more than an hour to get to the crime scene, for the specific purpose of finding a gay guy and assaulting him.

Maybe things have gotten better, lately. I'll admit that the story I saw was 5-10 years ago, and things may have changed.

But somehow I don't think that there have been very many cases, in the last 10 years, of gangs of people sitting around saying "Hey, whadda ya say we all go into the big city, hunt us up a n*****, and beat the **** out of him, for fun?"

I suspect that very few blacks, when they're walking down the street, have to consider the possibility that the car coming up behind them may stop, and four people with baseball bats will jump out and attack him, just for fun.

But according to this officer, it was happening multiple times a day, in Houston alone. To gays.

----------

I also recall reading the story posted by an ES poster, regarding the way things used to be when he was in Basic Training in the military. Seems that it was decided that there were two guys in his squad that they figured were gay.

The Sargent called a meeting with the straights, where the Sargent suggested that the members of the squad assault the two suspected gays in their sleep. He suggested when they should do it, and how they should do it.

This poster was proud of his participation in a gang assault on two fellow soldiers. An assault which was not only condoned, but suggested, by their commander.

Somehow, I don't think he'd have been as proud, if he'd assaulted two blacks who were trying to join the military.

----------

I haven't seen any threads about major political organizations organizing boycotts or protests because of a rumor that some book or cartoon may contain a a character whose race is never mentioned once, but there's a rumor that the character is based on a black person.

----------

Haven't seen any laws passed, lately, making it illegal for blacks to be employed in any job in a school, based on the claim that blacks are a threat to children.

----------

The Supreme Court, a long time ago, struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage.

There aren't any major political movements advocating that every Constitution in the US be amended, so we can get that ban reinstated.

----------

In short, I think it's clearly obvious that the folks claiming that discrimination against gays isn't the same as discrimination against blacks are 100% correct.

It's beyond discussion that discrimination against gays is worse.