Perez Hilton loses Pageant for Miss CA

[Bingbong]

For fucks sake man, you are either trolling the shit out of me, or you're just intentionally dense. Fuck this, I'm out. Not going to discuss this with assholes who take shit out of context or intentionally misread and misrepresent things to salve the abrasions on their anus.

This was the point I made 3 pages ago.
On the gay marriage debate, most turn it into: you are for it, or the moral scum of the planet.

The man has opinions, contrary to some, he doesn't go out a look to ban things, or remove anybody's rights, he just believes contrary to it, yet he gets jumped on. It does nothing to improve the cause, or belief in equal rights based on sexuality. When advocates for gay marriage push those in the middle like this, I'm of the opinion that it hurts the cause, because, as we saw, instead of having dialouge, he merely says screw it, I don't care anymore, and moves along.

[Rhinox]

This was the point I made 3 pages ago.
On the gay marriage debate, most turn it into: you are for it, or the moral scum of the planet.

The man has opinions, contrary to some, he doesn't go out a look to ban things, or remove anybody's rights, he just believes contrary to it, yet he gets jumped on. It does nothing to improve the cause, or belief in equal rights based on sexuality. When advocates for gay marriage push those in the middle like this, I'm of the opinion that it hurts the cause, because, as we saw, instead of having dialouge, he merely says screw it, I don't care anymore, and moves along.

wat?


Being against gay marriage and exclaiming that It's healthier for a child to have a male and female parents without anything to back that up is not the middle... lol

[kuronosan]

What I was referring to was the lack of grammatical sense. I was trying to understand the quote, and I think I got the gist, but I wanted to be sure.

I'd agree it takes 2 loving parents to raise a child for the most part. However, there will be places where a gay couple will do better, and places where a straight couple will do better. The question is, how important are those places in which one couple does better?

Also, saying one couple wont have an advantage/disadvantage in some areas is complete bullshit. I'm sure a gay couple (on average) will do a far better job teaching their child about accepting people for who they are than the average straight couple. This is because the gay couple has lived and experienced (for the most part) not being socially accepted. They in turn want their child to exhibit complete acceptance of (almost) anybody. I say almost because some kinds of people should not and will not be accepted (pedos, murderers, etc).

While this may be a good quality to instill, there could be qualities not stressed enough by the gay couple. But thats what makes people different. What makes one form of parenting "better"? Well, thats subjective. I believe as long as the kid grows up well, and is a good person in the long run, then no form is "better", just different.

I do understand that in order to socialize someone properly for a heterosexual relationship you would need a male and female parent. I'm saying there is no proof that having a homosexual parenting will not accomplish the same thing.

I wasn't trying to attack your point. I was answering you and moving on with my response to Melch. Sorry if it seemed like I was tearing at you.

[Correction]

When advocates for gay marriage push those in the middle like this, I'm of the opinion that it hurts the cause, because, as we saw, instead of having dialouge, he merely says screw it, I don't care anymore, and moves along.

Did you actually read what he wrote? "Gays adopt children because it allows them to selfishly validate their alternative lifestyle." "Children with two daddies or two mommies are at a serious disadvantage." "Tax breaks to married couples should exist exclusively for heteros because after all they're meant to facilitiate childbirth."

None of these represent the middle of anything, and when you make unreasonable statements like this you're going to get crucified by anybody with a rational mind.

[Kuya]

Question, would it bother anyone here if having two same sex parents really did, hypothetically speaking, increase the chances of someone, in the future, being involved in same sex relationships? That is, if we are to assume that the offspring tend to unconsciously mirror their parents, and i'm talking increasing chances, not an immediate causation. In other words, would it bother anyone here if having gay parents really did increase the chances of kids turning out gay?

[kuronosan]

It wouldn't bother me, simply because that's exactly how socialization works.

It would bother me, however, if the child became an unproductive member of society. It's the same with hetero marriages. Your child should not:

1) Learn to hate the intolerance of others, thus becoming intolerant themselves.

2) Learn that committing crimes is okay as long as you get away with it or believe in what you do.

3) Learn that you should be able to get whatever you want because no one else matters but you.

Both hetero and homosexual marriages have the potential to pass these off to children equally.

If a child grows up gay, so what. There are plenty of non-gay humans out there for my children to marry (unless they turn out to be gay themselves) so it's not like it matters how someone else's child grows up unless they are a danger to society or others.

[Correction]

I'm all for fewer couples reproducing anyway. :D

[Bingbong]

wat?
Being against gay marriage and exclaiming that It's healthier for a child to have a male and female parents without anything to back that up is not the middle... lol

Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not gay, I'm not into pageantry, and my only qualm with gay marriage is that some legal and tax benefits bestowed by married status are there for the express purpose of encouraging childbirth, which homosexual couples cannot participate in. Now, that being said I'm not against tax and civil law revision to bestow certain benefits in regard to child rearing upon heterosexual couples who breed and in the same stroke NOT bestow them upon couples who do not breed, in the interest of fairness.

That was his opinion on it, and within 10 posts his opinion was shredded, and turned into an entirely different argument. And yes Rhinox, considering he's not out there looking to prevent gay marriage, or prevent equal rights, and instead just doesn't advocate for it, I would consider him in the middle. Or maybe you haven't seen what those who really are against it are doing.

[BarthelloSylph]

I believe in civil rights. The right for anyone to marry and the right to free speech. Funny how it seems those two can't exist.

[Rhinox]

Spin it however you want his stance is not a "middle ground" no matter how you want to shake it I'm sorry.

[Melchiah]

Did you actually read what he wrote? "Gays adopt children because it allows them to selfishly validate their alternative lifestyle." "Children with two daddies or two mommies are at a serious disadvantage." "Tax breaks to married couples should exist exclusively for heteros because after all they're meant to facilitiate childbirth."

None of these represent the middle of anything, and when you make unreasonable statements like this you're going to get crucified by anybody with a rational mind.

If YOU had actually read what I wrote, instead of putting quotations around your twisted perception of my OPINION and then misrepresenting that as me claiming it to be absolute truth, you wouldn't look anywhere near like the asshole you are.

Next:

wat?


Being against gay marriage and exclaiming that It's healthier for a child to have a male and female parents without anything to back that up is not the middle... lol

I would like to point out that in my original argument, I qualified every statement to which you are referring as being based upon my personal feelings, and by extension my experiences, and never once did I ever try to represent my feelings as fact.

In short, you two morons shit up entirely too many threads by twisting the words of people with unpopular opinions to make them sound like intolerant assholes, and both of you are worthless posters for it.

[HadesChubbs]

Not saying what they did is nice, but when you're in an argument (if thats what this is, as its clearly moved beyond discussion) word twisting is a great tactic!

[EternityEnd]

I would like to point out that in my original argument, I qualified every statement to which you are referring as being based upon my personal feelings, and by extension my experiences, and never once did I ever try to represent my feelings as fact.

It is your experience that homosexual parents can't raise a child properly or to maximum quality because with two parents of the same sex, the child wouldn't be able to recognize the concept of rigid gender roles and thus wouldn't become a sexist, discriminative idiot who flocks to the idea of your "tradition"?

Shit, I think you're right after all.

[Demosthenes11]

Not saying what they did is nice, but when you're in an argument (if thats what this is, as its clearly moved beyond discussion) word twisting is a great tactic!

im gonna twist your "words" into my "point"

[Correction]

If YOU had actually read what I wrote, instead of putting quotations around your twisted perception of my OPINION and then misrepresenting that as me claiming it to be absolute truth, you wouldn't look anywhere near like the asshole you are.

It almost sounds like you're obliquely admitting your opinion isn't based in any reality we live in and is very likely wrong. If you're the kind of guy who's okay with being wrong but doesn't mind splattering his half-formed, hyper-qualified opinion across the Internet more power to ya. I hope you have fun doing it because honestly it's pretty fun to read it.

P.S. pure opinion is 'this is to my preference' not 'this is the reason for a state of being.' Saying shit like gay people who adopt are selfish (linked for context) strays pretty far away from simple opinion into stern conviction, something you wouldn't want to make public unless you had a better answer for your justification besides "well that's just my gut feeling, based on my experiences." That's no way to govern.

[Melchiah]

It is your experience that homosexual parents can't raise a child properly or to maximum quality because with two parents of the same sex, the child wouldn't be able to recognize the concept of rigid gender roles and thus wouldn't become a sexist, discriminative idiot who flocks to the idea of your "tradition"?

Shit, I think you're right after all.

It's my experience that homosexuality is still taboo in my region of the country. It's fair to say that I live in a bigoted environment, and I'll go right ahead and tell you that everyone is bigoted about something, even those of you who are straight and proudly bearing the banner for gay rights in order to earn cool points. But I digress.

Where I live, a child parented by homosexuals would be subjected to untold amounts of ridicule by his peers, would almost certainly not be accepted, and would remain ostracized in many parts of the area for as long as he or she remained.

To qualify my position: None of these things are the fault of either the child or the homosexual parents in the least. Any person willing to give a good home to another person's child is a saint. However nice it is to assume altruism in people who represent a cause we want to believe in, people at heart are selfish animals regardless of sexual preference. As that relates to the issue at hand, children are many times viewed as a manner of legitimizing a household, or worse, an acquisition of a personal goal by both hetero- and homosexuals.

For a homosexual couple adopt a child out of a sense of responsibility or a desire to give a child a good home is a good thing. However, subjecting a child to the sort of ridicule and excessive social awkwardness that would happen here in the bible belt is something that any rational or feeling person would have to weigh against their personal desires.

Furthermore, my comments on the selfishness issue were meant to read that there are homosexuals who genuinely want to provide a good home for a disadvantaged kid and in addition there are those who just want to validate themselves through adding a child to their collection. I never said that every homosexual couple who wants children is in it for selfish reasons, so please just stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Archie, Kuya, I appreciate the two of you being reasonable about this discussion. Correction and Rhinox, I appreciate your zeal and utopian ideas of society, but frankly you need to stop painting the world in black and white. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are a bigot or even that they are in direct opposition to you. Grow up.

[EternityEnd]

Validate themselves via adding a child to their collection? Who the fuck are you talking about? No one fucking does that. Not in any relation to their sexual orientation, or in any greater numbers than heterosexuals.

You're demonizing "certain"(non-existent) homosexual couples in your mind in order to justify your extremely misguided and ill-formed opinion. You're attempting to come off as some intellectual who really doesn't care, when in reality, you're already just as bigoted as the bigots you admit to being raised around.

Ideologies of certain parts of the country have been forced to change and adapt in the past, and will be forced to change and adapt in the future. Guess what? Last I checked, the "bible belt" wasn't too keen on the idea of abolishing slavery. Guess what? Last I checked, slavery was abolished, and most people's opinion on that matter changed.

[Melchiah]

Validate themselves via adding a child to their collection? Who the fuck are you talking about? No one fucking does that. Not in any relation to their sexual orientation, or in any greater numbers than heterosexuals.

You're demonizing "certain"(non-existent) homosexual couples in your mind in order to justify your extremely misguided and ill-formed opinion. You're attempting to come off as some intellectual who really doesn't care, when in reality, you're already just as bigoted as the bigots you admit to being raised around.

Ideologies of certain parts of the country have been forced to change and adapt in the past, and will be forced to change and adapt in the future. Guess what? Last I checked, the "bible belt" wasn't too keen on the idea of abolishing slavery. Guess what? Last I checked, slavery was abolished, and most people's opinion on that matter changed.

You need to take off your rose-colored glasses my friend.

Edit: Who the fuck are you to tell me how I feel about anything? I never once said I was for legislating against homosexuality, or their ability to get married. I said my only qualm with them getting married was the small part of the tax code regarding dependents(specifically, children), you fucking illiterate tool. This entire subdiscussion stemmed from Archie asking me to explain my opinion. You want to call me a bigot for feeling a certain way, fine. I'll be the bigger man and not do the same to you, because what you are doing is essentially the same thing you're accusing me of.

[EternityEnd]

Nice response. Got any more quip where that came from?

Edit: Weren't you "done" with this thread like... A page ago? Classic attention whore move.

[archibaldcrane]

Melchiah, I get it, you don't want the poor kids of homo parents to get picked on. It sucks you live in a place where this would be the biggest deal ever, but honestly dude - there isn't a 6th grade class in the country of America that says "Oh, you have two gay-ass dads? Yeah, we're liberal here in these parts, I'm not going to make fun of you."

Kids are brutal. Everywhere. Shit isn't sunshine and roses outside of Alabama either. However, growing up with two gay parents is a social cakewalk compared to growing up, ya know, actually gay. Gay parents acutely know this much more succinctly than you ever will, because they had to deal with it too.

I'm sure that where you're from, if you have one black parent and one white parent you get plenty of ignorant hicks making sideways or even direct comments, kids making fun of you, etc. etc.

Given that "difficult" upbringing and the racial confusion that follows, do you also advocate against multi-racial parentage in backwater conservative states like your own?

Also the whole tax breaks thing...is just an odd stance to take unless you're going to point to specifics that address financial concerns of straight couples with children that gay couples with children wouldn't have.

Oh, and the whole "having a kid to legitimize your gay relationship" is probably the most beautiful, majestic 50-foot strawman I've ever seen on here. Do you know a single gay couple that has done this?