View Full Version : Gay Marriage: a NON-Religious discussion
Was listening to Michael Savage rant tonight on Gay Marriage. And in part of his debate with a caller supporting gay marriage, Savage boiled down his argument to a profound point and then lost all credibility by devolving into religiousity.
The main idea, of which I want to discuss here, without (as the title says) all the religious shit getting in the way, is this:
A sociological (non religious based) premise arguing against gay marriage is that the institution of marriage encourages and guides a society in its survivability. It encourages procreation while establishing a sense of order through the family unit.
At least thats how I understood Savage's perspective.
Now... lets discuss.
________________________________________________
My thoughts are, first and foremost, I dont care if gay people get married. Now, with that in mind, I also have a hard time believing in today's level of society that all social order would dissolve if gays were allowed to marry.
Because, first off, not every member of society is gay. Therefore, in some or most cases, there will be traditional heterosexual family units that procreate (among those who do not).
Furthermore, I think that we as a soceity have evolved to the point, intellectually, where a sense of civil and societal order is understood to be necessary and that those concepts and ideals can be taught to younger generations regardless of sexual orientation. That would be like, in my opinion, someone saying that raising a child in a gay household will result in a socially inept (non-productive) child (member of society). Which has been proven to be inaccurate according to the sociological models I've read.
What are your thoughts? Please bear in mind, I'm looking for non-religious arguments either for or against the topic. So if you can not back up your point of view without delving into theological quotations or lines of reasoning then please refrain from discussing, or start another thread discussing this topic from a religious perspective.
Skeeter
03-05-2007, 09:56 PM
Does it hurt me or impact my life in anyway? No? Then I have nothing against it. Obviously this argument doesn't apply to every situation, but I find it fitting in this case.
Kranar
03-05-2007, 09:59 PM
I have yet to hear a single argument as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry.
I too, would be very curious to hear a counterargument.
Artha
03-05-2007, 10:04 PM
I think pretty much any counterargument is going to involve religion, because marriage is primarily a religious idea.
Personally, I'm straight so I don't really care.
Its ok, Gan. Really. Its ok.
I agree that in today's world, modern marriage is synonomous with a mixture of religious and governmental practice, in its many different forms.
However, marriage in its basic form is a contract. And if I'm not mistaken, this type of contract has been around long before most modern religions.
Its ok, Gan. Really. Its ok.
Is this really all you can contribute, or is it another one of your attempts at lame humor?
And no its not ok, you dimwit. This is a fundamental platform by which we are basing decisions on who should be the leader of our country. I figured you of all people would recognize that part.
Keller
03-05-2007, 11:14 PM
Premise 1: A well ordered and adjusted citizenry is important for the national welfare.
Premise 2: Marriage promotes familial harmony and stability (w/ the recognition of the multi-marriage society throwing a kink in this premise).
Premise 3: Gay communities, on balance, are more lucivious w/ transient relationships and wild lifestyles (w/ the recognition that I am most familiar w/ gay men and almost exclusively in LA).
Premise 4: Throughout most of the US gay marriage is not sanctioned.
Conclusion: Allowing gay marriage will promote an ordered and well-adjusted society.
AestheticDeath
03-06-2007, 12:44 AM
How bout throwing a loop in here and saying, that if you allow homosexual marriage, you should allow bigamy or polygamy.
I am not saying I am for or against anything. Just wondering what the main differences would be. Who, what or why and all that. Who decided marriagable age was 18, or younger with a parents consent? Who first decided to make a law that homosexuals couldn't marry. And why did they make the laws in the first place?
Tsa`ah
03-06-2007, 03:14 AM
Premise 1: A well ordered and adjusted citizenry is important for the national welfare.
Premise 2: Marriage promotes familial harmony and stability (w/ the recognition of the multi-marriage society throwing a kink in this premise).
Premise 3: Gay communities, on balance, are more lucivious w/ transient relationships and wild lifestyles (w/ the recognition that I am most familiar w/ gay men and almost exclusively in LA).
Premise 4: Throughout most of the US gay marriage is not sanctioned.
Conclusion: Allowing gay marriage will promote an ordered and well-adjusted society.
While I understand that you're not arguing against gay marriage, a few of the premises are flawed.
Premise 2: The Vegas, celebrity, oops we're pregnant, broken ... etc etc ... pretty much blows this premise out of the water before we even take a stab at divorce.
Premise 3: While that is the "perception", such communities are no different than straight America. When you centralize people of similar lifestyle into a community setting, many ill formed perceptions will occur. 150 gay men in a club, most with one thing on their mind .... well, many are going to hook up for the night or an hour or 5 minutes. It's not that they're gay, it's that they're men.
I can easily counter this premise with the fact that accidental pregnancies are almost nonexistent in gay communities. When a couple decides they're ready to settle down and raise a child or children ... well they have moved beyond the party scene and have made a choice in lifestyle change. Where as dumb ass A didn't wear a condom and dumb party girl B didn't give a shit .... 9 months later their stupidity has forced them into a lifestyle they didn't want nor are they ready for it.
In a nutshell, there exists only one thing to set apart gay America from straight America ... sexual preference. Everything else is ill conceived bullshit. There aren't any more transient relationships, they don't party more ... they go from day to day just like everyone else, but they catch shit for something that has 0 impact on anyone outside of their lifestyle.
Once you remove religion from the debate, the next thing a bigoted fuck wad is going to grasp for is nature. When you point out homosexuality exists outside of the human influence, they point at straight lions killing gay lions. When you point out that it has nothing to do with homosexuality and more to do with a gay lion trying to get some from a straight lion and not taking no for an answer ... well they go for survival of the species. When you point out over population and an incredibly deep well of orphans in need of parents ... well they get confused and start spouting religious bullshit again because they don't have the balls to admit they're bigoted fuck wads.
Tsa`ah
03-06-2007, 03:22 AM
How bout throwing a loop in here and saying, that if you allow homosexual marriage, you should allow bigamy or polygamy.
I am not saying I am for or against anything. Just wondering what the main differences would be. Who, what or why and all that. Who decided marriagable age was 18, or younger with a parents consent? Who first decided to make a law that homosexuals couldn't marry. And why did they make the laws in the first place?
I really don't see the problem with people living in a manner they see best for themselves ... so long as everyone in the relationship are accepting of it. There really isn't a difference between polygamy and bigamy other than bigamy is really the term used when there are people in the relationship unaware of their spouse having another spouse or multiple spouses.
The biggest issue would be one of taxation. Put a cap on allowable deductions per family ... hell rewrite tax laws in concern to marriage and children in such a way that there's no extra benefit to multiple wives/husbands and an army of children and arguments against are on par with arguments against gay marriage.
Stretch
03-06-2007, 07:25 AM
If we're strictly going by "a sense of order," then marriage should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Got twelve kids and unemployed? No marriage for you, that's a terrible setting to raise a child.
Can't even take care of yourself and go out five nights a week until 3 am? No marriage for you, that's absolutely neglectful.
If it's a matter of procreation, there are only a couple hundred million orphans around the world that are left on their own. Take a page out of Brangelina's book, if you can't find one at home then scour the third world (except China, they won't let you if you're overweight).
Any other debate is strictly rhetorical and based on religious outrage, because as we all know, this country was founded by Christians FOR Christians, and if you want to live here, you follow by those conventions. If we don't act soon, then (to paraphrase Pat Buchanan), we're about to experience the "Death of the West."
A true sense of order regarding the family unit would be to require passing a test to have children. But that's another topic, and another rant I have about being responsible parents. :punch:
I have to really agree with Tsa'ah thus far, that when you boil it all down, its just another form of prejudice and bigotry, albeit masked in religiosity.
Is this really all you can contribute, or is it another one of your attempts at lame humor?
And no its not ok, you dimwit. This is a fundamental platform by which we are basing decisions on who should be the leader of our country. I figured you of all people would recognize that part.
This really shouldn't even be an issue. Its sad we are even having the discussion. Far more important things to fix than trying to tell people who can and can’t get married.
For the sake of conversation let me throw this out... economically, who stands to profit, or lose profit? Insurance companies could feel a pinch if 10% (I think) of the population suddenly shared medical expenses. Realistically it would be a lower percentage since not everyone would all go rush out and get married at once. Still, just to make sure the shareholders are happy, I’ll bet the insurance company lobby is working the Hill on this one.
This really shouldn't even be an issue. Its sad we are even having the discussion. Far more important things to fix than trying to tell people who can and can’t get married.
Yes, because we all know Gore is right and man is killing our environment!!! GET ON THE REAL BANDWAGON FOLKS!!! (Even when I dont think you would suprise me anymore, you do)
Yes, because we all know Gore is right and man is killing our environment!!! GET ON THE REAL BANDWAGON FOLKS!!! (Even when I dont think you would suprise me anymore, you do)
???
How am I surprising you when I didn’t even come close to doing what you portrayed me as doing? In fact you asked me to stop joking around and contribute. I did exactly that. I think you are surprising yourself.
Back to topic. Whoever stands to hurt financially is going to be against gay unions. No one really stands to profit from it so you have apathy on that side.
Tsa`ah
03-06-2007, 10:25 AM
No one will profit?
THE ENTIRE WEDDING INDUSTRY PROFITS! Vegas will cash in like no other.
The reality of this is that the ONLY argument against, and thus preventing, gay marriage is based in theology and theology alone.
Remove theology from the discussion and you remove the tool most people use to mask their bigotry.
???
How am I surprising you when I didn’t even come close to doing what you portrayed me as doing? In fact you asked me to stop joking around and contribute. I did exactly that. I think you are surprising yourself.
Back to topic. Whoever stands to hurt financially is going to be against gay unions. No one really stands to profit from it so you have apathy on that side.
I was too busy laughging at your economic reason to respond right away. Sorry.
:lol:
For the sake of conversation let me throw this out... economically, who stands to profit, or lose profit? Insurance companies could feel a pinch if 10% (I think) of the population suddenly shared medical expenses. Realistically it would be a lower percentage since not everyone would all go rush out and get married at once. Still, just to make sure the shareholders are happy, I’ll bet the insurance company lobby is working the Hill on this one.
If you actually look at this closely you'll see that the insurance industry stands to profit more by lobbying to support gay marriage because of the fact that most employee health plans cover spouses and dependants at a lesser percentage contribution than the actual employees. So as a result they would collect more in premium revenue every payperiod/month than they normally do if each of the participants were to be covered individually by their own respective employee health plans. This weighs in even more heavily with the addition of a participant who was not covered by any health plan before. Thats premium revenue they are capturing that was zero before.
I'm betting the insurance lobby, at least those not lead by conservative religious leadership, will be lobbying the exact opposite.
No one will profit?
THE ENTIRE WEDDING INDUSTRY PROFITS! Vegas will cash in like no other.
The reality of this is that the ONLY argument against, and thus preventing, gay marriage is based in theology and theology alone.
Remove theology from the discussion and you remove the tool most people use to mask their bigotry.
True that. But the wedding industry is not as huge as the health insurance industry.
Another financial loser would be the government. Gay unions would mean more people having all the tax benefits that married couples or people with dependents have.
Arent the deductions for married jointly the same as each deduction would be for each filing individually.
Husband deduction = 3,000 something
Wife deduction = 3,000 something
Individual deduction filing single = 3,000 something.
I could be wrong, but I think this is how it goes without playing the itemized deduction loophole or filing for low income increased tax benefits.
Daniel
03-06-2007, 10:48 AM
You aren't gonna stop gay people from fucking just because they can't get married.
Drew2
03-06-2007, 10:49 AM
I know tha's rite.
Necromancer
03-06-2007, 10:50 AM
My MA Thesis is an argument against gay marriage
From a queer perspective.
Daniel
03-06-2007, 10:50 AM
Don't share
Drew2
03-06-2007, 10:51 AM
wtf gays don't get Masters degrees. Stop ruining the reputation.
Stanley Burrell
03-06-2007, 10:58 AM
God told me that if the lipstick lesbian patronage act is not passed, that there shall be great flaming smiting done.
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 11:00 AM
Arent the deductions for married jointly the same as each deduction would be for each filing individually.
Yep. My husband and I work for the same company. We have our own insurance. We don't plan on getting a family plan until we actually have a family (other than ourselves) to support. We actually get more coverage individually than having to share it.
wtf gays don't get Masters degrees. As if. I debunked that myth last May. Join the club and stop holding us back.
If gay individuals want to get married I'm not going to stand in their way. However I think the more interesting/less religious discussion is gay adoption.
TheEschaton
03-06-2007, 01:10 PM
I have had friends, to piggyback on Tijay's idea, who argue against gay marriage because it inevitably leads to gay adoption (or, in the case of lesbians, insemination) and you have kids raised by two moms or dads and there's no way they can be those "stable" members of society, or have a "normal" sexual identity, if their parents are gay.
I disagree with this premise, but I don't exactly know how to disprove it. I would say it makes kids more open, just like being raised black or Latino or any other thing outside the "norm" makes you more aware of issues, and concurrently I'd say the "norm" for sexual identity is not normative at all, and in fact, unhealthy.
-TheE-
Nieninque
03-06-2007, 01:21 PM
It's not the "norm" that is unhealthy, it is the perception that anything that deviates from the norm is bad, that is unhealthy.
As far as "Gay parents teach their kids how to be gay"...how many gay kids have come from straight parents? How did that happen?
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 01:25 PM
It's very important for children to be part of the "norm" while growing up. Anything that makes them that much different from their peers makes things harder on them. This is in regards to having the same sex parents, having one black and one white parent, or anything else that isn't mainstream society right now. It's hard for a child fit in as it is without adding to it.
That being said, acceptance of anything against the standard is something that the parents have to actively and effectively explain to the child so that they're comfortable with their life so that they know how to adapt. Having them fend for themselves, or at least not prepping them with what they will expect, isn't going to help them figure things out any easier.
A gay couple is better than no couple for an orphan.
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 01:31 PM
As far as the adoption aspect goes, as long as the parents are responsible, I don't care if they're one man, one woman, a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men and woman, three women and a man... as long as the home is stable (as well as the people) and the child is cared for, that's all that should matter.
I just tend to believe in having at least one male and one female role model in any given family. I'm a little old fashioned in that regard.
TheEschaton
03-06-2007, 01:38 PM
And that's the issue. My friends who would argue this would say a female being raised by two men (or vice versa, a boy being raised by two women), won't be able to articulate a sense of their own gender due to a lack of female role model. Or, in the case of same sex between couple and child, that they become too male, or too female. I think its bogus, because to claim that, you have to claim you cannot be normal in a single parent setting, and that somehow being a single parent is wrong.
As for having a balance in gender, I don't think it matters. If you're straight, you're gonna turn out straight, if you're gay, you'll turn out gay. Your model is predicated on the idea that one's environment can and will overcome one's nature.
-TheE-
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 01:45 PM
I'm just saying SOME kind of family role model of both sexes. My parents divorced when I was 11 so my mother raised me the rest of the way on her own. Most of the male parenting was from my grandfather, not my father. Just to have two different sexes to learn from, per say.
I don't believe it makes them more female or more male in any regard, seeing as how I was raised by my mother, 4 aunts, a grandmother and a grandfather. I'm by far the least girly of my family.
TheEschaton
03-06-2007, 01:47 PM
It still relies on the idea that one's environment overcomes one's nature in your theory. As if a girl wouldn't turn out straight if she was raised by all men, and those mens' mothers and sisters weren't in the picture. I think that's a fallacy.
-TheE-
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 01:51 PM
You lost me. I never said that the makeup of parents will cause a child to be straight or gay. I believe I said it wouldn't matter. All I said was I believe in a home having one of each sex to learn and grow with.
I also believe that every home should have a pet of some kind. It doesn't mean I'm condoning beastiality. :D
I think either you're reading too deep into what I'm saying, or I'm not explaining it right.
Nieninque
03-06-2007, 02:27 PM
It's very important for children to be part of the "norm" while growing up. Anything that makes them that much different from their peers makes things harder on them. This is in regards to having the same sex parents, having one black and one white parent, or anything else that isn't mainstream society right now. It's hard for a child fit in as it is without adding to it.
I agree that it can make things more difficult for a child, but so can having freckles, red hair, a lisp, liking Machester City, eating vegetables, etc. etc.
I dont think any of them are necessarily reasons to avoid that whole thing on the off chance that someone is going to be mean to them about it, moreso help the child recognise and appreciate diversity and equip them for dealing with the people (children and adults) who are not as open minded.
That being said, acceptance of anything against the standard is something that the parents have to actively and effectively explain to the child so that they're comfortable with their life so that they know how to adapt. Having them fend for themselves, or at least not prepping them with what they will expect, isn't going to help them figure things out any easier.
Yep.
Nieninque
03-06-2007, 02:29 PM
A gay couple is better than no couple for an orphan.
That's a really unhelpful attitude, although Im sure that you dont mean it in that way.
It's the kind of attitude that meant that when gay couples have been allowed to adopt historically, they have only been able to adopt the more difficult to place children (disabled, or emotional/behavioural difficulties). Kind of "well, I gues they are better than nothing".
In actual fact, two balanced and caring parents, regardless of sex or sexuality, are in fact good carers for children.
Nieninque
03-06-2007, 02:32 PM
As far as the adoption aspect goes, as long as the parents are responsible, I don't care if they're one man, one woman, a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men and woman, three women and a man... as long as the home is stable (as well as the people) and the child is cared for, that's all that should matter.
I just tend to believe in having at least one male and one female role model in any given family. I'm a little old fashioned in that regard.
So in fact, while you are arguing that gay couples are fine and dandy, they should have a lodger of some sort of the opposite sex within the house? Otherwise, the only way your old fashioned beliefs could see themselves through, would be if it were a heterosexual couple.
Role models are important, but they dont need to be in the family to be important and effective, just in the child's life.
In actual fact, two balanced and caring parents, regardless of sex or sexuality, are in fact good carers for children.QFT
That's a really unhelpful attitude, although Im sure that you dont mean it in that way.
It's the kind of attitude that meant that when gay couples have been allowed to adopt historically, they have only been able to adopt the more difficult to place children (disabled, or emotional/behavioural difficulties). Kind of "well, I gues they are better than nothing".
In actual fact, two balanced and caring parents, regardless of sex or sexuality, are in fact good carers for children.
Yes, it would have been better to say two capable and caring people, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, is better than no couple at all for an orphan.
I was not aware that historically gay couples were only allowed to adopt disabled or emotionally troubled children. That, and the attitude you describe, is troubling.
Jorddyn
03-06-2007, 02:44 PM
Arent the deductions for married jointly the same as each deduction would be for each filing individually.
Husband deduction = 3,000 something
Wife deduction = 3,000 something
Individual deduction filing single = 3,000 something.
I could be wrong, but I think this is how it goes without playing the itemized deduction loophole or filing for low income increased tax benefits.
Actually, a gay couple raising a child would likely pay more in taxes as a married couple, but it has nothing to do with deductions or exemptions.
They are currently most likely currently filing one head of household return, and one individual return, which combined bumps the tax brackets up and reduces tax liability.
So, basically, the tax code now supports not getting married if both parents work (and there's no huge disparity in income). WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HATE MARRIAGE?
Jorddyn
Khariz
03-06-2007, 02:45 PM
You know, as stupid as this sounds, I actually think that the problem with most Americans regarding gay marriage is the label, not the result.
I've seen polls that basically show that more Americans are willing to allow gays to have civil unions which grant them all the rights that marriage does, than Americans are willing to let gays "marry".
This is partially a symantics game and partially ignorance. The average member of the American populace cannot seperate the ideas of Civil and Religious "marriage" from each other. And I don't really blame them. Having a legal education myself, the concept is a rather simple one, but I can understand someone who knows nothing more about marriage than "we went to a church and a pastor married us" would be against "gay marriage".
So like, if we made up a word, say Schlongage, and we called gay marriage that instead of marriage, less Americans would have a problem allowing a civil union under that label. Silly? Yes. The religion based arguments come out *because* of the word marriage, most of the time, and not because most people don't want gay people to be able to visit each other in the hospital and share insurance.
I have quite a few ignorant acquaintances that are fine with gay civil unions granting the governmental rights that marriage bestows, that are against "Gay Marriage". The "label" matters way too much to way too many people. If somehow we could educate society at large as to what the real issue is, and not what they THINK the issue is, I don't think gay marriage would be as big of a deal as it is.
Keller
03-06-2007, 02:45 PM
Premise 3: While that is the "perception", such communities are no different than straight America. When you centralize people of similar lifestyle into a community setting, many ill formed perceptions will occur. 150 gay men in a club, most with one thing on their mind .... well, many are going to hook up for the night or an hour or 5 minutes. It's not that they're gay, it's that they're men.
I was more referring to the day-to-day lifestyle. W/o any modicum of stability or accountability, it's like being a sophomore in college for the rest of your life. I can honestly say getting married required me to tame my lifestyle significantly. It's the stability of the relationship that I think is good for the transition from college-adult to responsible-adult. 95% of the responsible shit I do on a day-to-day routine I do because I know my wife counts on me now.
Keller
03-06-2007, 02:48 PM
Actually, a gay couple raising a child would likely pay more in taxes as a married couple, but it has nothing to do with deductions or exemptions.
They are currently most likely currently filing one head of household return, and one individual return, which combined bumps the tax brackets up and reduces tax liability.
So, basically, the tax code now supports not getting married if both parents work (and there's no huge disparity in income). WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HATE MARRIAGE?
Jorddyn
This is especially pernicious when it comes to the earned income tax credit phase outs. There is a demonstrable penalty for marriage. But I digress.
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 02:53 PM
So in fact, while you are arguing that gay couples are fine and dandy, they should have a lodger of some sort of the opposite sex within the house? Otherwise, the only way your old fashioned beliefs could see themselves through, would be if it were a heterosexual couple.
Role models are important, but they dont need to be in the family to be important and effective, just in the child's life.
Yeah I knew I wasn't stating it right. :(
I'm Cuban. I have a large family. Even though I was raised by my mother, I had a lot of family influences. It's what I'm used to and what I would want for my own family. There was always a male around at one point or another and I feel that made me more of a well balanced individual. But that's just me and probably my naive ways of thinking of it.
Simply said, I'm not against gay marriage.
Keller
03-06-2007, 02:56 PM
Another financial loser would be the government. Gay unions would mean more people having all the tax benefits that married couples or people with dependents have.
The only real tax advantages of marriage over non-traditional relationships is in estate planning.
Miss X
03-06-2007, 03:12 PM
I agree that it can make things more difficult for a child, but so can having freckles, red hair, a lisp, liking Machester City, eating vegetable
What the... I have/do all of those!!!
Berylla
03-06-2007, 04:19 PM
My ex-husband is gay.
That being said, and without going into too much detail, I am against gay marriage. The reason being is that I have seen first hand what it did to my children.
My ex had a ceremony in a church with his "husband" and without my knowledge, involved my two children in his ceremony.
I have two talented, good-looking, intelligent, caring kids who love their father dearly. And he has literally put them through hell.
I think people really don't care much about this issue...until it effects them personally. All my reasons are tied up in my kids issues with their father's homosexuality and how they have had to deal with it.
Yes, I think it has made them much more open and understanding now that they are young adults. They're both very strong and each developed their own methods of dealing with it over the years.
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
Kids will be teased no matter what, that's correct. But what do you tell your 9 year old daughter who comes home crying because all the kids know her Daddy is gay and tease her mercilessly about it? And what do you say when it happens again at 11, again at 14, and on and on over the years.
It's hard for me not to look at this issue from a personal angle. All I know is that every time the subject comes up, I cringe inside. I wish that weren't so, but it is.
Nice post Berylla. Thanks for sharing.
It almost makes me wonder about the maturity of civilization if, even as adults, some of us behave no better than children when faced with coping with people of different looks, behaviors, histories, cultures, etc.
Perhaps the world just isnt ready for a difference in something so fundamental as relationships.
:shrug:
CrystalTears
03-06-2007, 04:37 PM
I think there's a big difference between seeing your mother/father who you knew as loving your other parent decide to change their life to live as a gay person, than a gay couple bringing up a child from the start.
I also think that the situation your family went through would have been hard whether he was going to marry his husband or a new wife. It would involve a huge amount of resolution and understanding on everyone's part.
I'm not saying that your family didn't go through a difficult period, because my cousin went through a similar situation, but I wouldn't immediately assume the hardship was strictly because he was going to live as a gay man now.
Keller
03-06-2007, 04:38 PM
My ex-husband is gay.
That being said, and without going into too much detail, I am against gay marriage. The reason being is that I have seen first hand what it did to my children.
My ex had a ceremony in a church with his "husband" and without my knowledge, involved my two children in his ceremony.
I have two talented, good-looking, intelligent, caring kids who love their father dearly. And he has literally put them through hell.
I think people really don't care much about this issue...until it effects them personally. All my reasons are tied up in my kids issues with their father's homosexuality and how they have had to deal with it.
Yes, I think it has made them much more open and understanding now that they are young adults. They're both very strong and each developed their own methods of dealing with it over the years.
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
Kids will be teased no matter what, that's correct. But what do you tell your 9 year old daughter who comes home crying because all the kids know her Daddy is gay and tease her mercilessly about it? And what do you say when it happens again at 11, again at 14, and on and on over the years.
It's hard for me not to look at this issue from a personal angle. All I know is that every time the subject comes up, I cringe inside. I wish that weren't so, but it is.
So instead of trying to repair the public image of homosexuality by, among other things, allowing them to marry, you want to continue their alienation from normative society.
With all respect to your children's youth -- their teasing had little to do with thheir father having a ceremony and more to do with his sexuality. Continuing to disallow gay marriage neither protects them from teasing now nor protects future generations from teasing later.
Nieninque
03-06-2007, 04:41 PM
I have two talented, good-looking, intelligent, caring kids who love their father dearly. And he has literally put them through hell.
I think people really don't care much about this issue...until it effects them personally. All my reasons are tied up in my kids issues with their father's homosexuality and how they have had to deal with it.
Yes, I think it has made them much more open and understanding now that they are young adults. They're both very strong and each developed their own methods of dealing with it over the years.
Which is what kids do. You cant wrap them up in cotton wool and hide them from anything that might be unpleasant for them to hear or to have to deal with. Part of learning how to be a rounded adult is to deal with adversity. Sure, it's shitty at the time, but generally kids come through stuff like that.
As far as your ex including your kids in his ceremony without telling you, that's shitty parenting. Not because he included them in his ceremony, but because there was no communication.
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
Well, lets say something good came out of it. Why do kids need to be hidden from the fact that two people love each other? It is only a big issue for kids because it is a big issue for adults. Why would bullying about their father's sexuality be any different from bullying about anything else? Parents being fat/ugly/poor/smelly/etc. It isnt. It only becomes different because of your feelings about it. Because having to have those discussions with your children causes bad feelings for you.
Kids will be teased no matter what, that's correct. But what do you tell your 9 year old daughter who comes home crying because all the kids know her Daddy is gay and tease her mercilessly about it? And what do you say when it happens again at 11, again at 14, and on and on over the years.
Tell her that people that bully her about it are ignorant, tell her to talk to her teachers. go talk to the teachers yourself. Explain to her that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality but some people are prejudiced about it in the same way they are prejudiced towards Black people, disabled people and red-headed nurses that support Manchester City (sorry Vic).
Is it a pleasant situation to deal with? No, of course it isnt. Is it a common one that parents the world over have to deal with? Yes. Change the reason for the bullying for any number of interchangable topics, but the effects are still the same. The response is effectively the same as well.
It's hard for me not to look at this issue from a personal angle. All I know is that every time the subject comes up, I cringe inside. I wish that weren't so, but it is.
Bingo. "personal" being the operative word.
I'm sure there are personal issues for you having a partner who left you and started up a relationship with another man. That's understandable. But what you are doing is using your children as an excuse for your own feelings about it. Convenient? Oh yes.
Keller
03-06-2007, 04:44 PM
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
Did you shelter them from race? From gender? How is homosexuality different?
I don't mean to be too critical, but this is the first substantive post in this thread in a while. Thanks for sharing. :)
Jorddyn
03-06-2007, 04:47 PM
My ex-husband is gay.
That being said, and without going into too much detail, I am against gay marriage. The reason being is that I have seen first hand what it did to my children.
...
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
To me, this reads that you're less against gay marriage and more against homosexuality. Whether or not their father was "married" is pretty much irrelevant to their questions and other kids' teasing.
Perhaps if gay marriage were legal, your ex would not have decided to try to fit the societal norm and marry a woman in order to have children?
Jorddyn
Kids will be teased no matter what, that's correct. But what do you tell your 9 year old daughter who comes home crying because all the kids know her Daddy is gay and tease her mercilessly about it? And what do you say when it happens again at 11, again at 14, and on and on over the years.
How is this really any different than the kid who gets teased mercilessly about being too poor to afford to keep up with the other kids, or the kid with the physical deformities, or kid whose dad left their mom for another woman, etc? What do you tell them thats so different than what you had to tell your kid.
Tsa`ah
03-06-2007, 05:50 PM
I was more referring to the day-to-day lifestyle. W/o any modicum of stability or accountability, it's like being a sophomore in college for the rest of your life. I can honestly say getting married required me to tame my lifestyle significantly. It's the stability of the relationship that I think is good for the transition from college-adult to responsible-adult. 95% of the responsible shit I do on a day-to-day routine I do because I know my wife counts on me now.
Which is no different for gay people when you think about it.
My ex-husband is gay.
That being said, and without going into too much detail, I am against gay marriage. The reason being is that I have seen first hand what it did to my children.
What impact did it have on your children? How they were treated by other children?
If it weren't a gay father, it would have been because their parents were divorced, or because they were short, tall, wore glasses, dressed different, were too brainy, fat, skinny, didn't like peanut butter and jelly, liked banana popsicles but not bananas .... children are cruel.
Was it your reaction? Bruised ego because your husband left for another man, left for another woman, scorned ex-wife, broken gaydar, felt duped .... you name it.
A year after my cousin divorced he started seeing other people. 3 months into a relationship he felt comfortable enough with the relationship to allow his daughter and girlfriend to interact. Everything was fine for the first few encounters, but when his ex-wife "popped in" to pick up their daughter unannounced she, his daughter, burst into tears, gathered her things and ran to the car. She felt she betrayed her mother by having a good time with her dad's girlfriend ... because she wanted to believe that her dad was an terrible person and his girlfriend was even worse ... because of what they were putting their mother through ... even though her mother broke the marriage up by cheating and had been seeing people since the moment of divorce.
Parents put their children through some awefull shit with divorce without knowing ... maybe you need to sit back and realize that you could have done as much "damage" to the kids as your gay ex-husband did.
My ex had a ceremony in a church with his "husband" and without my knowledge, involved my two children in his ceremony.
They're his kids as well aren't they? He needed your blessing before he got married? He needed your blessing before involving his own children in his life?
You, nor your kids, realize how lucky they are that their father was/is still in their life. This sounds less and less like an issue with gay marriage and more and more of an issue with an ex-husband moving on with his life.
I have two talented, good-looking, intelligent, caring kids who love their father dearly. And he has literally put them through hell.
Please read the above. I'm sure you are just as responsible for any "hell" your kids went through.
I think people really don't care much about this issue...until it effects them personally. All my reasons are tied up in my kids issues with their father's homosexuality and how they have had to deal with it.
Your kids have to "deal" with their father's homosexuality because of they way you and your ex-husband raised them. They have to "deal" with their father's homosexuality because of the way we as a society have tolerated bigotry the past 2 centuries. Your children have to deal with it because you never took the time to explain to them that this bigotry, engineered into society, is wrong ... not their gay father.
Yes, I think it has made them much more open and understanding now that they are young adults. They're both very strong and each developed their own methods of dealing with it over the years.
Again ... they dealt with it because of your reactions, the reactions of society. It's good that they had to "deal" with it at a young age. Maybe they won't raise their children with a bigoted outlook.
But they had to deal with it. As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age. But there was no choice. There it was in front of them, day in and day out..it had to be discussed.
So it would have been better explaining heterosexuality? Do you wish they never had questions about sex with the opposite gender? It SHOULD be discussed ... this is not a taboo issue. Making it taboo leads to more bigotry. Those avoiding it should move to a southern state, lose some teeth, grow mullets, and practice incest. That does seem to be the preferred "head in the sand" approach.
Kids will be teased no matter what, that's correct. But what do you tell your 9 year old daughter who comes home crying because all the kids know her Daddy is gay and tease her mercilessly about it? And what do you say when it happens again at 11, again at 14, and on and on over the years.
I have 2 daughters. The oldest will be in jr High next year. She has come home weekly in tears because she can't be "normal" like other kids. She will ask me why she has to be taller than every kid in the school ... even those older than her. She will ask me why she gets teased for getting straight As. She will ask me why she has to have braces, why she has to wear glasses ... and when it will end.
Truth be told, they would tease her if her father were a janitor ... just that being gay is such an easy target. Chances are, she would be first in line to tease another kid about having a gay father if her's were straight. As parents we don't like to admit that our children are just as cruel as the next, but I accept that and do my best to see that my children behave as well as they can in the absence of their parents while in the presence of their piers.
You have to accept responsibility in all of this because you didn't do anything to counter such mentalities when you believed your ex-husband was straight.
[quoteIt's hard for me not to look at this issue from a personal angle. All I know is that every time the subject comes up, I cringe inside. I wish that weren't so, but it is.[/QUOTE]
And you have to accept that your misgivings are nothing but personal.
I thought this deserved repeating...
Your kids have to "deal" with their father's homosexuality because of they way you and your ex-husband raised them. They have to "deal" with their father's homosexuality because of the way we as a society have tolerated bigotry the past 2 centuries. Your children have to deal with it because you never took the time to explain to them that this bigotry, engineered into society, is wrong ... not their gay father.
And this as it can be applied to any circumstance involving being a parent of children.
As parents we don't like to admit that our children are just as cruel as the next, but I accept that and do my best to see that my children behave as well as they can in the absence of their parents while in the presence of their piers.
Where's latrin to scold you all for picking on Berylla....
Honestly while I disagree with her position (as I hope you could figure out from my previous post) I just figured I should repost and explain that I do respect her for putting it out there.
Keller
03-06-2007, 06:48 PM
Where's latrin to scold you all for picking on Berylla....
Honestly while I disagree with her position (as I hope you could figure out from my previous post) I just figured I should repost and explain that I do respect her for putting it out there.
Agreed.
This thread was lacking in substance before she posted. It gave us something to discuss which is highly appreciated.
Drew2
03-07-2007, 03:12 PM
I had an entire rant worked up by the time I was finished reading Berylla's post, but between Tsa'ah and Ganalon, a lot of what I had to say has been said.
But just to restate, it astounds me that you can comfortably say
As a mother, I wish I could have sheltered them from having to understand about homosexuality at such a young age.
HAVING to understand about homosexuality? What the fuck. Your choice of words there speaks volumes about your own ignorance and bigotry. Homosexuality is not anything for you to understand anymore than heterosexuality is. Sure it's not as common, but it's real and there is nothing wrong with it. But this is going into an entirely different subject for a different thread/place/time.
Like someone else stated, I think you need to reflect on what really bothered you about the whole situation, because it sounds like your children are far better equipped to deal with it than you are/were.
ElanthianSiren
03-07-2007, 03:49 PM
I think people really don't care much about this issue...until it effects them personally.
Wow, I'm an incredibly abnormal person. I don't want to seem like I'm flaming you, but if people didn't care about issues until they virulently crept into their lives, women and minorities likely wouldn't be voting now. To infer nobody UNDERSTANDS the horrid impact of gay marriage is self serving and insulting to the rest of this board.
People understand that bigotry is overrated and would like to move away from it as our species advances. Ignoring that bigotry happens isn't the answer. Here's a brief list of things I was teased about as a kid:
My last name
Being a juvenile DIABETIC
Being Fat
Being Poor
Being gay
Dropping from Catholicism
Being stupid
Being white
Being close friends with a mexican
Being close friends with a bi-sexual
Having bad skin
........................ I could go on, but as you can see, kids tease other kids for anything that makes them different. Parental attitudes that this is acceptable and parental attitudes that stress ignorance are a large part of the very problem you describe.
-M
ElanthianSiren
03-07-2007, 03:53 PM
Ganalon and Tsa'ah had great posts btw.
-M
I grew up in a very prejudiced household. My mom not so much but my step father was pretty bad (and he was over 50% Indian) as well as my grandfather (carpetbagger from Pennsylvania) who was Archie Bunker reincarnate.
I grew up echoing these sentiments as a child because I did not know any better. The role models who were supposed to correct the wrong thinking were actually the ones perpetuating it.
My attitude actually changed firstly when I started playing team sports (little league/little dribblers and then school sports). Even in competition, I soon learned that the only difference that separated me from the others was personal traits (motivation, heart, drive, etc.) that had no bearing on skin color and of course which uniform we all were wearing.
Probably the other most significant even that started the change in my perspective was a film we watched in school where a teacher ran an experiment on her class. The experiment lasted over the course of a week or two. It consisted of segregating students in her class by eye color.
During the course of the experiment she first gave favor to one color, then took it away a few days later to give to the other, just so each side (blue eyes, and non blue eyes) could feel both sides of the spectrum. Then upon conclusion she reviewed the experiment with the class and worked through what the students felt at each point during the experiment. The students in the class, which were in her classroom all day, were either first or second graders (that's a little foggy in my memory).
First watching what each of the children were going through during the experiment and then expounding on its application during the wrap up discussions were decidedly profound for me. And of course hearing how children described their feelings (out of the mouth of babes) had an impact far greater than listening to a like description coming from a disassociated adult for me.
I know the film is still floating around (I think it was shot in the 70's) and I think the teacher received numerous awards for the effort. If you have not seen it, its worth a viewing if its still available. I'll see if I can Google it and find the teacher's name and where it took place.
Found it.
A Class Divided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Class_Divided) by Jane Elliott
Nieninque
03-07-2007, 05:13 PM
I saw that video at college. Pretty cool stuff.
radamanthys
03-07-2007, 07:53 PM
Humanity is boss hog around Earth because of our resiliance, use of opposable thumbs, and our ability to make-do, cope and learn from whatever situation is thrown our way.
Depravity and indifference is more a lack of focused morality within the environment or culture. Good parents will teach those they raise to obey the moral code in whichever society or culture they were brought up in. Bad parents will not. Gays, just like any other human, can be bad parents or good parents. If the emotional strife that was caused by their coming out within an intolerant society (a common argument) caused an unbalanced person, then they're probably not fit to parent. Same with any other unbalanced product of an environment- probably not fit to parent.
The worst that could happen, in my mind, is that a child of gay parents will have emotional troubles (either biochemical or due to depraved parenting), and then blame gays, then cause violence against gays because of that. Due to this, and the focus of society on the issue, would probably cause more focused and attentive parenting. And hell, if most Gays produced gay children, then it'd be another population like the Ashkenazi Jews (probably the best comparison we have).
Parenting skills aside, the product of a gay couple will have a greater chance of success, I say, than a child of a single parent; two people raising a kid would be much easier on the family unit than one, due to less constraints of time and money, and a larger capacity for care.
Making another post with the other side of the argument.
radamanthys
03-07-2007, 08:11 PM
Cliffs:
Humans == good at coping with stuff
Bad parents make bad kids, who turn into bad parents
Gay =! Bad Parent
Bad parent == Bad parent
2 Gay parents > many Single parents
What's the risk? Population decline if they don't reproduce? If half the people in the world dropped dead, we'd still have too many, anyway.
Stretch
03-07-2007, 08:39 PM
It's been alluded to a couple times, but...
I would contend that minority children get teased/discriminated against just as much, if not more, than children of gay parents. It adds another layer of complexity, yes, but you wouldn't even think to consider not allowing black marriage because the child has growing pains.
Unless you're Pat Robertson.
Tsa`ah
03-07-2007, 11:12 PM
And hell, if most Gays produced gay children, then it'd be another population like the Ashkenazi Jews (probably the best comparison we have).
I don't get the comparison at all.
Bartlett
03-08-2007, 05:28 AM
It begins with the belief that homosexuality - or any other brand of fornication - is wrong. There are 3 ways in which we can define something as wrong; Biblical precedent, personal opinion, or just going with someone else's convictions.
We liev in a society where it used to be unacceptable to be homosexual, to have an affair, or to have sex at the ripe age of 12. Everyone is about to say/think that I hate gay people, which is simply false. However, I disagree with homosexual activity. The human body is made to be functional, and the male and female bodies obviously are meant to fit together. This should be a clue. Many people who are homosexual are ashamed of themselves. Is this because society tells them to be? Maybe it is. Homosexuality is a social disease like alcoholism or anything else.
Are there genetic roots to it? Not proven, but it wouldn't surprise me. People are inclined to do all sorts of things. Back to alcoholism, this has proven genetic roots, and people generally can't help themselves. Why should society tell them that this burning desire they have is wrong? The same could be said of sexual predators, rapists and child molestors. They are most likely wired differently than you and I. Why should we prevent their choice? That is the slippery slope. We are changing the definition of right and wrong to support something that is was and will be wrong.
In our world, sex means nothing more than physical pleasure to people. Why then is it wrong if a 5 year old wants a blowpop and an old dude wants to have sex? Both parties are conscenting, and sex is meaningless aside from the pleasure you get, so why should we, as a society, deny either one of them their right to happiess? Because it is wrong. People know all the above listed items are wrong, and it prevents them from happening a lot of the time. If they became socially acceptable, it would happen a lot more, guaranteed.
Unless you are Michael Jackson, you can't do anything about your race. This is entirely different from choices people make. For every study about how homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, there is one that says the exact opposite. In our attempt to be politically correct, we deny the latter. Since it remains socially unacceptable, many of the issues are not widespread, and the extent of the ramifications of allowing gay marriage is pretty much unknown. People won't know what is wrong if you don't tell them, which is why gay marriage should not be allowed. Our society does not need to promote this behavior.
Disclaimer:
Well, I have to toss out a bit of religion at you, sorry to usurp the thread. I regard homosexuals as any other sinner, namely everyone on earth, and feel a great deal of sadness for people afflicted with this. Most homosexuals I have met feel that something is not right, but they feel helpless to help themselves, and just accept they were born that way, and our society today tells them it is normal, natural and they shouldn't feel bad. Eventually the conscience of mankind will be whitewashed of this feeling through conditioning (just like sex outside of marriage) and life will go on. The evidence for sex outside of marriage being is abundant, and the same will be true of homosexuality, but once we give the nod of approval, it is basically impossible to take it back.
StrayRogue
03-08-2007, 05:35 AM
You are fucking retarded.
Nieninque
03-08-2007, 05:40 AM
You are fucking retarded.
QFT
CrystalTears
03-08-2007, 08:09 AM
You are fucking retarded.
QFTx2
ElanthianSiren
03-08-2007, 09:09 AM
It begins with the belief that homosexuality - or any other brand of fornication - is wrong. There are 3 ways in which we can define something as wrong; Biblical precedent, personal opinion, or just going with someone else's convictions.
Only three? Since we're having a non theological debate here, there are technically only two.
We liev in a society where it used to be unacceptable to be homosexual, to have an affair, or to have sex at the ripe age of 12.
I doubt anyone here is going to argue that sex between consenting adults somehow equates to affair or prepubescent carnal knowledge. ....
The human body is made to be functional, and the male and female bodies obviously are meant to fit together. This should be a clue.
Let's see... males have a rod and a hole. That fits together just fine. So you have problems only with lesbians, I assume?
Many people who are homosexual are ashamed of themselves. Is this because society tells them to be? Maybe it is. Homosexuality is a social disease like alcoholism or anything else.
Are you serious? Where's/Who's your source here? Are you really equating potentially loving partnerships to something as destructive as alcoholism? Have you ever known an active alcoholic?
Are there genetic roots to it? Not proven, but it wouldn't surprise me.
You're obviously talking out your ass here. Quote some biological studies, but please for the love of god, don't sit there and say... not proven! There have been plenty of studies on the physiological components of homosexuality, including ones dealing with the size of the hypothalamus etc. Suprisingly!, most prove that several factors are at work when predicting sexuality; something that intricate isn't as easy as knee jerk moral judgements like "good" or "bad", as others would hope.
Back to alcoholism, this has proven genetic roots, and people generally can't help themselves. Why should society tell them that this burning desire they have is wrong? The same could be said of sexual predators, rapists and child molestors. They are most likely wired differently than you and I. Why should we prevent their choice? That is the slippery slope. We are changing the definition of right and wrong to support something that is was and will be wrong.
Wrong in whose opinion? Why are you equating felonies and potential felonies with something that isn't illegal but considered immoral by a happy parcel of judgemental individuals? You're joking around, right?
In our world, sex means nothing more than physical pleasure to people. Why then is it wrong if a 5 year old wants a blowpop and an old dude wants to have sex? Both parties are conscenting, and sex is meaningless aside from the pleasure you get, so why should we, as a society, deny either one of them their right to happiess? Because it is wrong.
I promise if any old dude wants to get a blowpop from a 5 year old, we'll have him arrested. There are laws against that sort of stuff. As for sex not meaning anything, did the idea ever strike you that perhaps sex means nothing to you? Where did you come up with this generalization?
For every study about how homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, there is one that says the exact opposite. In our attempt to be politically correct, we deny the latter.
We do? Please link to the published studies of how homosexuality is harmful. We can debate then on merit. I thought you were a conservative, not some liberal spouting off conspiracy theories.
Since it remains socially unacceptable, many of the issues are not widespread, and the extent of the ramifications of allowing gay marriage is pretty much unknown.
Generally, for a sample size to be considered adequate, you need only 1,000 participants that have been joined in some form of marriage and claim homosexuality. Can you make this statement and support it empirically?
Well, I have to toss out a bit of religion at you, sorry to usurp the thread. I regard homosexuals as any other sinner, namely everyone on earth, and feel a great deal of sadness for people afflicted with this. Most homosexuals I have met feel that something is not right, but they feel helpless to help themselves, and just accept they were born that way, and our society today tells them it is normal, natural and they shouldn't feel bad.
So you regularly place petty thieves, individuals that partake of meat on sacred days, and those that might say the words goddamn in the same wide sweeping categorical dimensions as child molesters when discussing them?
Landrion
03-08-2007, 09:12 AM
No need for me to reply, ElanthianSiren FTW.
QFTx2
x10^10
And ES's massive splinter post was spot on. Nice post.
(we need a bullseye smilie)
Skirmisher
03-08-2007, 09:52 AM
...
Homosexuality is a social disease like alcoholism or anything else.
Are there genetic roots to it? Not proven, but it wouldn't surprise me.
...
Did it take a long history of inbreeding in your family to produce such a backward individual as yourself?
Not proven, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Did it take a long history of inbreeding in your family to produce such a backward individual as yourself?
Not proven, but it wouldn't surprise me.
rofl
pwnd
Daniel
03-08-2007, 10:28 AM
I think at the end of the day you have to say..does it matter to me? Does it effect my life? If not, then why do you bother? God isn't going to give you brownie points because you were judgemental on a few people. In fact, he's more likely to knock you down a few pegs because you were a bigot, but hey..more power to you.
It doesn't effect me. So why should I give fuck right?
Skeeter
03-08-2007, 10:29 AM
I was about to make a post about how impressed I was that this board is so progressive. Then the nazi spoke up and shot it all down. Oh well.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 10:42 AM
In our world, sex means nothing more than physical pleasure to people. Why then is it wrong if a 5 year old wants a blowpop and an old dude wants to have sex? Both parties are conscenting, and sex is meaningless aside from the pleasure you get, so why should we, as a society, deny either one of them their right to happiess? Because it is wrong.
I am certain that sub-consciously, deep within your firing grey matter, pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same -- And that it is wrong for you.
Berylla
03-08-2007, 10:52 AM
I'm glad I posted on this topic but I find it a little annoying that people jumped to some conclusions about how I handled the situation I found myself in.
For the record - my ex-husband left when my children were 2 and 4 years old. Much too young to have any preconcieved notions about relationships, in my opinion. They don't remember their father living at home and don't remember a time when he wasn't openly gay.
Personally, I feel that I handled the situation very well. They have always spent weekends with their father, we never fought in front of them, both families have always been included in birthdays and major events, we have discussed homosexuality and heterosexuality, birth control, being sexually active, date rape, teen acne and every other controversial and not-so-controversial topic you can think of....at great length. I'm not the bad parent some of you seem to have implied. And I don't think I'm a bad mother or that I've done any psychological harm to my kids because I wish I could have sheltered them from a very tough subject in their lives.
My kids are now 16 and 18 years old. They don't drink, they don't smoke (I know, boring, right?) and I'm damn proud of them.
I'm not exactly a closed-mouthed person. If I think about something, I'm pretty darn likely to blurt it out....much to my kids embarrassment at times. But I think I have a pretty good idea of what they're thinking and feeling because of this. We talk about everything under the sun, usually ad nauseum.
I think this whole thread is absolutely fantastic. It has really made me think about the subject and that's a good thing. Thanks for posting everyone!
TheEschaton
03-08-2007, 11:04 AM
Bartlett: You're a jackass. I can't even begin to rebutt your mass o' fallacies, but ES had a good start.
-TheE-
CrystalTears
03-08-2007, 11:38 AM
Berylla: I guess I'm not understanding when your kids had this hard time you mentioned in your original post then.
How old were they when their father got remarried? Did they express confusion? If they didn't have much recollection of their father in the home for much time, wouldn't this be more of a tragedy for you than them? Wouldn't the remarry of him be strange, regardless of the gender of his partner?
I appreciate your response in all of this though. Although I honestly believe, along with what others posted, that this isn't about the marriage but about homosexuality.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 11:50 AM
I'm glad I posted on this topic but I find it a little annoying that people jumped to some conclusions about how I handled the situation I found myself in.
For the record - my ex-husband left when my children were 2 and 4 years old. Much too young to have any preconcieved notions about relationships, in my opinion. They don't remember their father living at home and don't remember a time when he wasn't openly gay.
Personally, I feel that I handled the situation very well. They have always spent weekends with their father, we never fought in front of them, both families have always been included in birthdays and major events, we have discussed homosexuality and heterosexuality, birth control, being sexually active, date rape, teen acne and every other controversial and not-so-controversial topic you can think of....at great length. I'm not the bad parent some of you seem to have implied. And I don't think I'm a bad mother or that I've done any psychological harm to my kids because I wish I could have sheltered them from a very tough subject in their lives.
My kids are now 16 and 18 years old. They don't drink, they don't smoke (I know, boring, right?) and I'm damn proud of them.
I'm not exactly a closed-mouthed person. If I think about something, I'm pretty darn likely to blurt it out....much to my kids embarrassment at times. But I think I have a pretty good idea of what they're thinking and feeling because of this. We talk about everything under the sun, usually ad nauseum.
I think this whole thread is absolutely fantastic. It has really made me think about the subject and that's a good thing. Thanks for posting everyone!
You're mad that your first love left you and hate gay people as a result of that.
Berylla
03-08-2007, 12:54 PM
I hate gay people??
Where the fuck did you get that from?
I think at the end of the day you have to say..does it matter to me? Does it effect my life? If not, then why do you bother? God isn't going to give you brownie points because you were judgemental on a few people. In fact, he's more likely to knock you down a few pegs because you were a bigot, but hey..more power to you.
It doesn't effect me. So why should I give fuck right?
/agree
Too bad the religious right (politicians included) cant think this way.
Skirmisher
03-08-2007, 01:05 PM
You're mad that your first love left you and hate gay people as a result of that.
Come on Stanley, you are more intelligent than that.
You're strange as heck, but intelligent and better able to see where she may be coming from than that.
Until you have been married and in the situation that she was in it's not fair to make such a sweeping statement about Berylla from these few comments alone.
Berylla, I also appreciate you posting and being as clear and open as you could.
I DO however tend to think you are feeling residual anger, and understandably so, at the situation you found yourself in.
I do NOT think someone can compare children growing up in a stable secure two parent same sex marriage to children dealing with a divorce which even if not acrimonious was surely trying and left long lasting scars.
Yes children can be at least as cruel as adults, but they can find something to be cruel about no matter what if they so choose so I can not accept this reason as one to seriously impede two people wishing to make a life together just as the rest of society does without a second thought.
Skeeter
03-08-2007, 01:08 PM
^^ your neon sucks!
Since I can't find it within me to write out a 2 page reply to the mess Bartlett posted, hats off to ES for attempting the impossible. However, I just couldn't pass up replying to some of your misdirected opinions so allow me.
Our society does not need to promote this behavior. And by some miracle of a higher power homosexuality has been around since the dawn of humanity and that remains to this day, societal acceptance or not. No one is asking for homosexuality to be government sanctioned, promoted, or straight-approved. It just is and there is nothing any society can do to stop people from being gay.
It must have been a tough one for you. Making the choice to be heterosexual because of the restraints society has placed upon homosexuality. Is it possible your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?
and feel a great deal of sadness for people afflicted with this. And for Christ's sake gay people neither want or need your sympathy so box it up and sell it on e-bay to someone who might make some use of it and/or give a damn.
Since it remains socially unacceptable, many of the issues are not widespread, and the extent of the ramifications of allowing gay marriage is pretty much unknown.
"In the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation.
The institution of marriage in Massachusetts since same-sex Marriage was legalized, as measured by the rate of divorce, has not been healthier in at least half a century regardless of dire predictions of Christian Right leaders and Catholic Bishops." *Wikipedia
Also, see http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/ for additional ramifications.
Methais
03-08-2007, 02:44 PM
Seem to have gotten my threads mixed up. Anyway...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iuVEc7ULzy4
:rofl: When did he go crazy?
I wonder if he knows the world is overpopulated. Or that gays and lesbians have babies every day. I respect him as a wrestler, but um, stupidity doesn't make the world work either. So there.
Sean of the Thread
03-08-2007, 03:34 PM
:rofl: When did he go crazy?
I wonder if he knows the world is overpopulated. Or that gays and lesbians have babies every day. I respect him as a wrestler, but um, stupidity doesn't make the world work either. So there.
Actually according to all his co workers etc he's been a fucking nut case since day one.
Methais
03-08-2007, 04:03 PM
:rofl: When did he go crazy?
I wonder if he knows the world is overpopulated. Or that gays and lesbians have babies every day. I respect him as a wrestler, but um, stupidity doesn't make the world work either. So there.
Please point me to one incident where two males or two females produced a baby together that biologically belonged to both of them to back up your statement of "gays and lesbians have babies every day."
Queering doesn't make the world work = If the world were nothing but homosexuals, the human population would die out. It's pretty hard to argue with that don't you think?
Please point me to one incident where two males or two females produced a baby together that biologically belonged to both of them to back up your statement of "gays and lesbians have babies every day."
My statement wasn't made to imply that two males or two females can have a baby together that biologically belong to both. However, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that many a lesbian couple have children that they biologically birth and raise together with the aid of a straight or gay man. The same goes for gay men who provide "assistance" in the biological birth of their child by way of lesbian or straight women. It's very common for those who identify as homosexual, are in committed long-term relationships and want to have a child of their own. That's the sum of argument, which I stand by.
The ability to procreate is not a litmus test for romantic love or more than just gays and lesbians would be aversely affected.
If the world were nothing but homosexuals, the human population would die out. If the entire human species were male, then reproduction would be impossible, and the species would become extinct. Therefore, maleness is unnatural and must be discouraged.
An argument that relies on taking something to a non-existent extreme is weak. Warrior's argument is nothing more than a red herring.
The analogy is improper, IMO, and has no place in a debate which argues for or against same sex marriage.
The reality is that an extremely large majority of the human population is heterosexual. It's safe to say that trend will continue until the end of time. Most children of gay parents are heterosexual, and most gay people have heterosexual parents. These variations have always been apart of the reproduction process of the human species, yet they have never reached a level where the threat of extinction has been the dominanting factor or any factor whatsoever.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 05:32 PM
Come on Stanley, you are more intelligent than that.
Berylla's homophobic psychodynamics are abnorm' 101 for dummies-type shiznit, imho.
AestheticDeath
03-08-2007, 08:51 PM
I think at the end of the day you have to say..does it matter to me? Does it effect my life? If not, then why do you bother? God isn't going to give you brownie points because you were judgemental on a few people. In fact, he's more likely to knock you down a few pegs because you were a bigot, but hey..more power to you.
It doesn't effect me. So why should I give fuck right?
You are so totally wrong there. It does affect you. You just don't see the bigger picture.
TheEschaton
03-08-2007, 08:58 PM
Pray, do tell.
You are so totally wrong there. It does affect you. You just don't see the bigger picture.
This ought to be entertaining...
:lol:
AestheticDeath
03-08-2007, 09:06 PM
My statement wasn't made to imply that two males or two females can have a baby together that biologically belong to both. However, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that many a lesbian couple have children that they biologically birth and raise together with the aid of a straight or gay man. The same goes for gay men who provide "assistance" in the biological birth of their child by way of lesbian or straight women. It's very common for those who identify as homosexual, are in committed long-term relationships and want to have a child of their own. That's the sum of argument, which I stand by.
The ability to procreate is not a litmus test for romantic love or more than just gays and lesbians would be aversely affected.
If the entire human species were male, then reproduction would be impossible, and the species would become extinct. Therefore, maleness is unnatural and must be discouraged.
An argument that relies on taking something to a non-existent extreme is weak. Warrior's argument is nothing more than a red herring.
The analogy is improper, IMO, and has no place in a debate which argues for or against same sex marriage.
So basically you have to cheat on the person you are committed to, in order to have kids. Sure sure - they know about it. So that makes it right? Not really. Isn't this going more towards polygamy?
You could adopt, thats fine. Or have artificial insemination I guess. How many people would do it artificially rather than just going for it?
I still don't see how you can say homosexuality is right, or normal when you can't procreate. God wouldn't have made women if he wanted men to fuck each other. You can take the God part out if you like, and say women wouldn't have evolved as a seperate sex if they weren't needed.. Or whatever. Humanity consists of two sexs for a reason. Assholes were not made for sexual activity - they were made for defacation, ridding yourself of waste.
The following may be BS, but I recall a health teacher commenting on anal sex, and he said something along the lines of the anus and whatnot being more prone to damage during sexual activity than vaginas. Hence, the ease of damage causing more open sores and exchange of blood - leaving gay men more prone to spreading STDs, like AIDs and whatnot. And yes heterosexual couples have anal sex too. I realize that, but that doesn't make it any less of a perversion.
TheEschaton
03-08-2007, 09:09 PM
And obviously God wouldn't of created the appendix if it wasn't necessary.
-TheE-
Its amazing how the argument falls apart and its always a religious justification thats used as an attempt to save it.
Stanley Burrell
03-08-2007, 09:42 PM
How many people would do it artificially rather than just going for it?
Many.
Straight, gay, bisexual, polysexual, assexual, sporophytes, whatever.
I've worked in OBGYN at a nearby hospital and there doesn't always have to be a fertility issue, either (independent of a same sex marriage.)
From my personal experience, almost, if not all of the people I've known that were gay (albeit, I've only known two sets of officially gay couples) were open-minded enough to know that bringing a child into the mix in order to "prove a point" was a way misguided notion versus the idea that if your responsible parenting basics wouldn't come under fire paired with whatever synergy a same sex couple's immediate surroundings (Greenwich village/any conceivable point on the planetary axis that Fred Phelps might not like) would be -- And if there would ever be a question of inadequate child welfare from the final homosexual cocktail, then a child wouldn't be brought into the mix to begin with.
I do digress knowing that the same insufficiencies in parenting will occur in human beings pretty-much-basically-no-matter what.
Its amazing how the argument falls apart and its always a religious justification thats used as an attempt to save it.
Well established, and well reiterated. Thanks.
So basically you have to cheat on the person you are committed to, in order to have kids. Sure, tell that to the heterosexual couple who are unable to have children on their own and so seek the services of a fertility clinic to assist in childbirth.
Isn't this going more towards polygamy?No, not really.
I still don't see how you can say homosexuality is right, or normal when you can't procreate. I can procreate just fine. Obviously no one can do so on their own, but I can conceive quite naturally as I was born with a vagina and a uterus to boot!
God wouldn't have made women if he wanted men to fuck each other. God wouldn't have made heterosexual men and women who are unable to have children by no fault of their own if we were put on this earth simply for the purposes of procreation. There are heterosexual couples that do not want children. I guess we should consider that a sin and go ahead and attach a punishment to it as well since they are clearly not following the path God set out for them.
Assholes were not made for sexual activity You say this as if heterosexual couples don't engage in anal sex. Furthermore, this is not a particularly important sexual activity when it comes to lesbian sex as opposed to gay sex. In fact, for most lesbians the asshole is completely irrevelant.
The following may be BS, but I recall a health teacher commenting on anal sex, and he said something along the lines of the anus and whatnot being more prone to damage during sexual activity than vaginas. Hence, the ease of damage causing more open sores and exchange of blood - leaving gay men more prone to spreading STDs, like AIDs and whatnot. And yes heterosexual couples have anal sex too. I realize that, but that doesn't make it any less of a perversion.Not all homosexual men engage in or even like anal sex.
Skirmisher
03-08-2007, 10:28 PM
I still don't see how you can say homosexuality is right, or normal when you can't procreate. God wouldn't have made women if he wanted men to fuck each other.
....
So, is it that are you too stupid to understand the title of this thread or perhaps are you suffering some sort of short term memory loss and in between reading that title and starting to type your drivel you forgot it?
AestheticDeath
03-08-2007, 11:23 PM
You guys like chopping it up and leaving out the rest.
You can take the God part out if you like, and say women wouldn't have evolved as a seperate sex if they weren't needed.. Or whatever. Humanity consists of two sexs for a reason.
Whether its God, evolution or it just plain fucking started out that way. There are males and females in humanity. That is how we reproduce. That is natural.
Since men can't reproduce with men, and women can't reproduce with women, what exactly makes it a natural thing?
And Dev.. You also left out part of my thread response in that I said hetero couples have anal sex as well.
And yes heterosexual couples have anal sex too. I realize that, but that doesn't make it any less of a perversion.
I just wasted like 2-3 hours making stupid replies though. I will let someone else take over for a while.
And Dev.. You also left out part of my thread response in that I said hetero couples have anal sex as well.
I skimmed your post, as I often do on the boards. In retrospect, it matters not, as I stated that not all gay men like or enjoy anal sex. As for lesbians, it rarely enters the equation. So I guess it's only as revelant as you make it out to be.
I will let someone else take over for a while.:)
Methais
03-09-2007, 12:02 AM
My statement wasn't made to imply that two males or two females can have a baby together that biologically belong to both. However, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that many a lesbian couple have children that they biologically birth and raise together with the aid of a straight or gay man. The same goes for gay men who provide "assistance" in the biological birth of their child by way of lesbian or straight women. It's very common for those who identify as homosexual, are in committed long-term relationships and want to have a child of their own. That's the sum of argument, which I stand by.
So basically then...since queering doesn't make the world work, gay couples who want kids find a way to work around it...because again, queering doesn't make the world work.
If queering did make the world work, a gay couple could both truthfully say "That's my biological child."
At best, one of them could say "I blew a load into a cup, broke out the turkey baster and injected my sperm into some chick I picked up at the fertility clinic" while his "husband" would say "And I did the stroking!" and that would be about as close as you can get to a gay couple fooling around and having a kid result from it.
For the record, I love lesbians.
Landrion
03-09-2007, 09:19 AM
You guys like chopping it up and leaving out the rest.
Whether its God, evolution or it just plain fucking started out that way. There are males and females in humanity. That is how we reproduce. That is natural.
Since men can't reproduce with men, and women can't reproduce with women, what exactly makes it a natural thing?
And Dev.. You also left out part of my thread response in that I said hetero couples have anal sex as well.
I just wasted like 2-3 hours making stupid replies though. I will let someone else take over for a while.
This explains it the best Ive ever read.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Nature,%20appeal%20to
Nature, appeal to. This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
At best, one of them could say "I blew a load into a cup, broke out the turkey baster and injected my sperm into some chick I picked up at the fertility clinic" while his "husband" would say "And I did the stroking!" and that would be about as close as you can get to a gay couple fooling around and having a kid result from it.
That is just one of many ways. It also debunks the statement without the need to go any further. Where there is a will there is a way and that's pretty much what makes the world work.
"If queering did make the world work, a gay couple could both truthfully say "That's my biological child.""
How exactly do you define making the world work? Assuming you mean our ability to continue as a species then I'm curious what does one have to do with the other? Your children don't need DNA from both individuals in a relationship for the world to "work"
Landrion
03-09-2007, 10:29 AM
"If queering did make the world work, a gay couple could both truthfully say "That's my biological child.""
How exactly do you define making the world work? Assuming you mean our ability to continue as a species then I'm curious what does one have to do with the other? Your children don't need DNA from both individuals in a relationship for the world to "work"
The queering and the world working thing isnt exactly a serious argument. Its more a mocking of this former wrestler named the ultimate warrior who coined the phrase to some minor controversy a while back.
The guy is an absolute loon and his speaches are semi-coherent at best.
Methais was using the term in an intentionally circular argument to mock the opposing arguments.
Stanley Burrell
03-09-2007, 01:13 PM
Just to address the scientific side of things, in vitro surrogacy whereas sperm is used from a gay male couples' genome is absolutely plausible as a contemporary child bearing method.
I am completely certain and equally hopeful that one or two hundred years down the road, cloning will have become refined enough to ensure fetal cell superplasticity to the point where a gay or lesbian couple could bear a child fully in-tune to both parents' genotypes, all while deliberate intron coding and/or RAS gene manipulation (albeit it paracrine/endocrine/autocrine from a specific nucleolytic steroid, I would imagine) is effectively used to ensure a healthy, non-Brave New World baby.
Right now, any direct attempt to do the above is called "Dr. Kevorkian" though. And for good reason, duhr.
Methais
03-09-2007, 02:54 PM
How exactly do you define making the world work? Assuming you mean our ability to continue as a species then I'm curious what does one have to do with the other? Your children don't need DNA from both individuals in a relationship for the world to "work"
For the world to continue to work, people need to be able to reproduce. A gay couple isn't naturally capable of this. Barring test tube technologies and all that (which isn't very natural), if everyone was gay, our species would die out, hence the world wouldn't work.
When Warrior made that statement, I don't think he meant it in a hateful nazi type way, so much as he was just telling it like it is. Unfortunately you can't even cough these days without offending someone or having it blown completely out of proportion. People are such pussies these days.
That is just one of many ways. It also debunks the statement without the need to go any further. Where there is a will there is a way and that's pretty much what makes the world work.
No, it doesn't debunk anything. Rewind time back to before they had the technology to do all that laboratory shit. If everyone was gay then, the human species wouldn't have survived long enough to come up with these technologies that "debunks the statement."
I don't hate gays or anything like that (though the flaming ones that throw it in your face all day need to just die), but well...Warrior's right. It doesn't make the world work. Guys fucking each other in the ass doesn't make the world work. Chicks eating each other's pussy and ramming dildos in each other's ass, as hot as that is, doesn't make the world work. A guy nailing a chick and having a baby pop out makes the world work.
In the simplest of terms, the way the world works is like this: You're born, you grow up, you reproduce, you die.
Daniel
03-09-2007, 02:56 PM
World of Warcraft doesn't make the world work. So, why do you play?
It's a stupid position. We do alot more with our lives then fuck and make babies.
Landrion
03-09-2007, 03:02 PM
For the world to continue to work, people need to be able to reproduce. A gay couple isn't naturally capable of this. Barring test tube technologies and all that (which isn't very natural), if everyone was gay, our species would die out, hence the world wouldn't work.
When Warrior made that statement, I don't think he meant it in a hateful nazi type way, so much as he was just telling it like it is. Unfortunately you can't even cough these days without offending someone or having it blown completely out of proportion. People are such pussies these days.
No, it doesn't debunk anything. Rewind time back to before they had the technology to do all that laboratory shit. If everyone was gay then, the human species wouldn't have survived long enough to come up with these technologies that "debunks the statement."
I don't hate gays or anything like that (though the flaming ones that throw it in your face all day need to just die), but well...Warrior's right. It doesn't make the world work. Guys fucking each other in the ass doesn't make the world work. Chicks eating each other's pussy and ramming dildos in each other's ass, as hot as that is, doesn't make the world work. A guy nailing a chick and having a baby pop out makes the world work.
In the simplest of terms, the way the world works is like this: You're born, you grow up, you reproduce, you die.
Oh wow. I thought you were kidding. Ive never heard of anyone actually quoting Jim Hellwig for truth!
No, it doesn't debunk anything. Yes, yes it does.
If everyone was gay then, the human species wouldn't have survived long enough to come up with these technologies that "debunks the statement."Non-existant extremes and all that.
but well...Warrior's right.Not in my opinoin, but of course you're entitled to yours.
It doesn't make the world work.If the entire population were homosexual I'm sure God or whatever higher power you believe in would show the purpose for having such imbalance among the human species.
Guys fucking each other in the ass doesn't make the world work. So lets ban birth control because using it doesn't help "make the world work" since neither sexual act results in a reproductive state.
A guy nailing a chick and having a baby pop out makes the world work.Unless he's infertile, or she can't have babies, then they don't "make the world work" either.
In the simplest of terms, the way the world works is like this: You're born, you grow up, you reproduce, you die.You totally left marriage out of the equation. So I guess since you don't have to be married to make the world work, if lesbian women and gay men hooked up, reproduced, then died, the world would still work.
You won't change my mind and I'm not about to try to change yours. I'm also not worried about the world not working because a crazy, non-existant extreme has been introduced. I've got more important things to concern myself with.
Oh wow. I thought you were kiddingSo did I at first.
I'm actually more amused than anything.
Methais
03-09-2007, 03:07 PM
World of Warcraft doesn't make the world work. So, why do you play?
It's a stupid position. We do alot more with our lives then fuck and make babies.
If everyone was gay, you wouldn't exist to do all those other things with your life, such as sleep during the part in English class where they explained the difference between "then" and "than." ;)
Perhaps Warrior should have said "Queering doesn't make the world continue to work."
Daniel
03-09-2007, 03:08 PM
If everyone were a WoW fiend the world wouldn't work either.
They'd be too busy raiding to fuck.
Methais
03-09-2007, 03:13 PM
If everyone were a WoW fiend the world wouldn't work either.
They'd be too busy raiding to fuck.
What, you never heard of a quickie during wipe recovery?
Nieninque
03-09-2007, 04:28 PM
People are such pussies these days.
Or just plain stupid.
No, it doesn't debunk anything. Rewind time back to before they had the technology to do all that laboratory shit. If everyone was gay then, the human species wouldn't have survived long enough to come up with these technologies that "debunks the statement."
Just to piss on your bonfire....everyone wasnt gay, therefore your stupid analogy is just that...stupid.
I don't hate gays or anything like that (though the flaming ones that throw it in your face all day need to just die), but well...Warrior's right. It doesn't make the world work. Guys fucking each other in the ass doesn't make the world work. Chicks eating each other's pussy and ramming dildos in each other's ass, as hot as that is, doesn't make the world work. A guy nailing a chick and having a baby pop out makes the world work.
In the simplest of terms, the way the world works is like this: You're born, you grow up, you reproduce, you die.
There is more to my life than that. Keep your pigeonholing to yourself thanks.
And if we work on the premise that people are babymaking machines, does that mean that infertile people have no purpose in the world? Or that they are unnatural?
"For the world to continue to work, people need to be able to reproduce. A gay couple isn't naturally capable of this. Barring test tube technologies and all that (which isn't very natural), if everyone was gay, our species would die out, hence the world wouldn't work."
But gay individuals are (as far as I know) capable of natural reproduction. I'm sure there are plenty of men/women out there who have fucked/knocked up someone who they weren't necessarily attracted to or in love with and I'd be willing to bet if all of a sudden we were in a population crisis you could convince a gay guy to knock up a gay/straight woman to continue our existance... because after all making the world work doesn't require things like love.. just being born, having babies, and dying.
Methais
03-09-2007, 05:31 PM
k
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.