A Fuzzy Thread

[Ron61]

Normal pertains more to the standards of an area than any one persons deciding what he thinks is normal. Webster:

Normal: A rule conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, or development and etc.

So what is normal for one place may not be for another. And no one person can make that determination it would seem.

Ron

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Normal pertains more to the standards of an area than any one persons deciding what he thinks is normal. Webster:

Normal: A rule conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, or development and etc.

So what is normal for one place may not be for another. And no one person can make that determination it would seem.

Ron

Ron,
Interesting point. We seem to be approaching gay marriage on a regional basis. I have no problem with that, and it makes a certain amount of sense anyway. The states that lean towards allowing gays the same rights (marriage/civil unions) as heteros tend to be the more populated states. I think that the people in most of those states have learned how to mind their own business a bit better because their neighbour is often living just a few feet from them. They may have to deal with a huge variety of people on a daily basis that gays just might not be a big deal, or even something that ever concerns them.

Steve

[Ron61]

Steve,

I have mixed feelings about gay marriage, mostly from my religious beliefs. I have worked with and around gays all of my working life and found both the men and women to be just people for the most part. They have the same radical fringe that all groups have. Working in San Francisco a lot, I really got to know more abut them as 3 of every 4 people working there were gay. One of the best people I ever worked with was gay and a concert pianist. None of them ever made any attempts to bother me and I never said anything derogatory about them. Despite our completely different lifestyles and beliefs, we managed to co-exist and work together with no problems. I still can't quite go along with the gay marriage bit though and they already get every benefit that anyone else out here does. I am not condemning nor judging them. Just stating my personal experiences with them. Heck, in San Francisco it could be called normal for you to see a man dressed as a woman walking down the street. Yet up here in the remote wilderness, that would be far from normal.

Ron

[trularin]

This thread has gone from Fuzzy to Furry.

What a great read.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by trularin

This thread has gone from Fuzzy to Furry.

What a great read.

You're talking about Jamo right? Blond-haired grey eyed North European mongrel types like myself are not known for being furry.
How many bags of popcorn have you gone through on this one?

Steve

[cobra de capell]

If one is pro-gay but not outed as gay, is one hiding something? In other words, is there something not stated on the agenda of that person?

[Ron61]

Ray,

If you are referring to my post above, I am not Gay nor do I back their trying to ram it down people's throats. But they are people just as you and I. What I said was that I worked around them a lot as my job took me to many places across the country and San Francisco has to be the Gay Capital of the world. I have no agenda and stated that my beliefs were in opposition to gay marriage, but I do not have the right to judge nor tell them or anyone else what to do. I would almost bet that at some point of your life you have worked or been around some gays and never even knew it. When I have something to say, it will be said clearly and not in innuendos.

Ron

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by Ron61

Ray,

If you are referring to my post above, I am not Gay nor do I back their trying to ram it down people's throats. But they are people just as you and I. What I said was that I worked around them a lot as my job took me to many places across the country and San Francisco has to be the Gay Capital of the world. I have no agenda and stated that my beliefs were in opposition to gay marriage, but I do not have the right to judge nor tell them or anyone else what to do. I would almost bet that at some point of your life you have worked or been around some gays and never even knew it. When I have something to say, it will be said clearly and not in innuendos.

Ron

It's not directed at you, Ron (you were just the next post up) - it's a general question - just wondering what's really on the agenda of those that really are pro-gay but not outed as gay and claim to not be gay. Just wondering if at least some of those people - people that really push the gay agenda have something else in their background - secret thoughts, secret desires that may be pushing the stated agenda of being fair, etc.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with being gay - it's the in your face stuff that upsets people and those that really push the gay agenda that upset people - I'm just wondering what's behind the door.

[Ron61]

Ray,

Thanks for the clarification. I guess we just had the misfortune of my post getting in just before yours. I don't like the In your face stuff either and that should not be done.

Ron

[VRM]

Ron,
Yep, religion is usually the sticking point. Religions and other institutions that rely on group strength (military comes to mind) tend to beat down the individual in favour of conformity.

Religions also tend to oppose assisted suicide and birth control. 2000 years ago those sort of things were not very conducive to building the strength of the group.

Steve

[trularin]

Steve, I am on three bags.

[bomelia]

The gaining of extra political power worries me the most. Granting gay people the institution of marriage opens new doors. I have serious reservations about gay couples raising adopted children or children that they use surrogates for. Why? First, its not normal! Its not biological, it is not natural. Anybody with kids (hetero parents) will tell you that there are distcinct, discernable charactertsitics in children that atttach to dads & moms. They get something different out of each parent. They need that. Yes, in one parent households, that is missing. And in some of those cases, the kids grow up with scars.

Second, these kids get a skewed view on normal life. And, the gay parents benefit politically by training these kids that the gay lifestyle is normal and accepted. This is another way that gays will get political power not commensurate with their population fraction.

If you grant gays "marriage" then you must allow them to adopt. Then what after that? The civil union, imperfect as it is the best answer. Gay couples must not be allowed to compete with hetero couples for adoption of children.

Finally, I know it is a stretch, but what about what today is considered deviant behavior? Adult/child sex. Human/animal sex? Etc? Each time we let go of one of the strings that ties us to the Truth, the remaining strings get put under greater tension. Eventially, they get cut too. There is truth in this world. But accepting non-truth as truth has its consequences. I really despise when folks try to tie the gay issue to the racial issue. They are not even close.

Mike

[VRM]

Mike,
I really despise when one group of people tries to tell another group of people how to live their lives in a country that is supposed to be full of freedom. So there!

Anyway - deviant behaviour (to me) would be something that is against the law. And that usually covers anything not involving consenting adult(s). Do you consider tattoos and piercings deviant? Should they be outlawed as well, or should they just be be restricted to people over a certain age?

As for gays adopting, I agree that kids are better off with two parents, and I would also agree that a male and female parents would be the ideal situation. I also think that most stable gay couples would be better parents than a number of parents currently raising kids. And I suspect that gay couples may be more open to adopting kids of different races (they are used to dealing with differences) where a lot of WASP types may only want white kids and have to go to Russia to get them. I know this is a personal thing for you as I think you adopted at least one of your kids (Caleb, right?). I'm sure you and your wife are great parents, but if you and other 'normal' families were not available to adopt him would you rather he go to a foster family with 5 other foster kids or a gay/lesbian couple with a nice house in the 'burbs?

Having a 'normal' family does not prevent kids from getting skewed in some way. In MA a gay person has no more political power than I do. A gay married guy has less political power than I do because his marriage is not recognised at the Federal level.

And when you get right down to it I think that the total % of American population that is gay is something like 2%, and I strongly suspect that a large number of gays who marry are more interested in the legal benefits than raising kids.

All that being said - I do wish that gays and other groups would stop marching around telling everyone how <insert adjective here> they are.

Steve

[bomelia]

They are 2-5%. Yet they have (and are gaining) political power beyond their numbers.

I am not totally opposed to gay parents... and I know this will sound awful... but in the case where children are difficult to adopt, any parenting at all is better than none at all. And even here, I am somewhat conflicted.

I just do not ever want to see a gay couple competing with a hetero couple for adoptions. I would assume in MA that you are indeed seeing gay couples now adopting children. Right? And if there are problems with it, laws will be passed that say one can not discriminate (in adoption) on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. THEN, the pregnant mother wanting her child adopted will lose all rights, gays will gain rights... and abortion rates will rise.

Of course, I am just positing, but you can see it if you think about it.

Mike

[cobra de capell]

polygamy would be next up.....

[Jamo]

Mike, being married is not necessarily a qualification for adoption.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Mike, being married is not necessarily a qualification for adoption.

Fair enough. That is true. I guess I am getting all wrapped in the issue from my personal perspective.

When it comes to private adoption, anything pretty much goes. Yet at least in the state I live in, and those around me, a "home study" is required by the state. That is how I remember it, since one must go to court and get the judge to sign off. In faith based adoption agencies (intermediaries) they can have their own requirements on top of the state (married, not gay, etc).

None the less, there will be a growing call for "adoption" rights for gays. If they are "married" then the legal issues are moot (insurance, visitation, etc)

Remember, married gay couples are by definition, in a sterile marriage. 100%. The only way to get kids is through surrogacy and adoption. Now, if they want to clone themselves, I have no problem with that. But each clone has 1/2 the "rights" as the original template.

Mike

[VRM]

Mike,
I would actually like to see a bill that allows gay marriage/adoption while restricting abortion to a degree. I am pro-choice, but not pro-unlimited choice, and I certainly do not want to pay for abortions for welfare types who use it as birth control. I would be in favour of forced sterilisation for welfare types who have two kids/abortions and also for deadbeat dads.

I don't think saying that any parenting is better than none at all sounds awful. I think it makes perfect sense! Too many parents are doing a lousy job, and schools are not making things any better. All of the gays I know would do a much better job, though none are interested in being parents.

You might find this surprising, but I am actually in favour of faith based help with adoption, and I have no problem with whatever requirements they might have. People do all kinds of things to be able to qualify for adoption. Gays are already parenting - some of them may even be around the corner from you - look for people with 'roommates'. I would rather all of them be able to be honest about who they are - I tend to think that not being able to be honest with yourself tends to create more scaring.

I do not want gays to have any more rights than me or you, but I do not want them to have any less either. I would like to dismantle affirmative action as well, especially since I do not want somebody to decide that it also applies to gays, Muslims, illegal aliens, or blue people.

Steve

[trularin]

I am not sure, but this could be the longest you all have stayed on a thread where Jamo didn't close the doors.

[Ron61]

Tru,

That was his goal was to start a thread than wasn't locked down. So he chose a name that didn't deal with any specific topic and it is hard to hijack a thread like that.

Ron