The End of Firefox

[Lark]

It is a tool being shaped for what is needed. Only based on your own values is it entropy. All that matters is if it performs it's task.

Besides, history shows that it has increased in complexity and more words are added all the time to include newer concepts and understandings. It is surely evolving to fit the needs of those who use it.

Dont confuse my "values" or your own with sociology.

We know what troubles have been experienced by homosexuals coming to terms with their sexual orientation in a society which they insist does not reflect it or validate it enough, the attempts at social transformation so far have not provided the hoped for solace, satisfaction or happiness this constituency has hoped they would but I fully expect it may mean that future heterosexual children, maturing adults and families may experience the same sorts of troubles which homosexuals are alledged to have historically experienced.

So equal misery is progress if change for the sake of change is considered progress, which it seems to be.

I dont see that the political manipulation of language serves anyone or does any good. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength.

 

[invisible]

im begging you to cease your dabbling in Orwell.

 

[CogentPursuit]

We know what troubles have been experienced by homosexuals coming to terms with their sexual orientation in a society which they insist does not reflect it or validate it enough, the attempts at social transformation so far have not provided the hoped for solace, satisfaction or happiness this constituency has hoped they would but I fully expect it may mean that future heterosexual children, maturing adults and families may experience the same sorts of troubles which homosexuals are alledged to have historically experienced.

Change has never been an easy process. But we change and we experience the outcomes both positive and negative, we learn and we move on from there.

As far as your second part goes, that is just absurd. Procreation of a natural form will always be dominant. Homosexuality is a minority. THey have to fight hard to be heard, show off to be noticed. But they will always be a minority and they will always struggle with this. They will never be able to dominate the heterosexuals as the heteros have dominated them in the past.

 

[54tjsioU]

I am interested in what you mean by this.

Lol I didn't mean you in particular, I hadn't seen you speak much less argue til now.

There's a few people on here that have patterns to their arguments, how they begin. Ranges from submissive, "I think this, oh but I don't want to argue about it-" to more much more aggressive depending on the person. Both resulting in the same. The instigator is made out to look crazy or like an asshole. It's funny though cause all of this stuff is written down, you'd think -I'd think- more people would recognize what's going on but most seem to fall in line to the same kind of pattern. Funny stuff

 

[CogentPursuit]

Lol I didn't mean you in particular, I hadn't seen you speak much less argue til now.

There's a few people on here that have patterns to their arguments, how they begin. Ranges from submissive, "I think this, oh but I don't want to argue about it-" to more much more aggressive depending on the person. Both resulting in the same. The instigator is made out to look crazy or like an asshole. It's funny though cause all of this stuff is written down, you'd think -I'd think- more people would recognize what's going on but most seem to fall in line to the same kind of pattern. Funny stuff

I am laughing at you right now

 

[muir]

Because the state requires gay and straight people to prove their relationship.

No it doesn't

Lots of people have relationships without getting married

Just make sure that any children are registered for both parents to enable both legal responsibility and have both parents write a will. That ties up most legal requirements

People don't need to get married...it's an extra

 

[LucyJr]

No it doesn't

Lots of people have relationships without getting married

Just make sure that any children are registered for both parents to enable both legal responsibility and have both parents write a will. That ties up most legal requirements

People don't need to get married...it's an extra

Than why do gay people want to marry?

 

[muir]

Than why do gay people want to marry?

For the same reasons as straight people

Originally marriage was to do with property rights and the wife was pretty much seen as the property of the man; for example it wasn't legally possible until fairly recently for a husband to rape his wife because legally it was perceived that it was his right

So the church was in on the deal because the church is part of the societal control structure but less and less people recognise the church so marriage is largely a legal contract but on top of that there is a certain social cache involved and it is now perceived to be part of our culture...its just one of those things that many people feel they should do because it is the done thing to do

But i think that's changing and the law will need to change to keep pace with changing views for example through civil partnerships

 

[cvp12gh5]

Than why do gay people want to marry?

Because they are in love. Marriage (at least for me) is completely different than being in a committed relationship. It shows a deeper level of commitment, in my opinion. It's basically saying, "I'm in it for life." Yes, married people divorce, but it is much harder to get out of a marriage than it is to break it off with a g/f, b/f.

There was a point in my marriage when my husband and I almost gave up on each other, but we didn't. We promised each other when we took that oath before God that we were in it through thick and thin.
If we weren't married, I don't think we would be together today, that's how frustrating it was. But that promise meant something to us. It means that this person means enough to you to stick around in good and bad times. And thank god we did.

Marriage means something, bottom line.

And love is enough of a reason.

 

[the]

Than why do gay people want to marry?

does it matter? Do they need to explain themself? Maybe and no.

 

[54tjsioU]

I am laughing at you right now

*shrug*

 

[CogentPursuit]

Because they are in love. Marriage (at least for me) is completely different than being in a committed relationship.

I'd agree about the commitment if divorce did not exist. Other than that it is really no different than not being married. I personally would have never gotten married. I love my wife and will be with her the rest of my life but the government has little part in making that a reality and I don't want them to. I want to show her on my own accord.

I don't really understand why people think marriage as a certificate and ceremony has meaning but to me it is all smokes and mirrors. It makes them happy, so that is enough for me. Other than that the only reason to have a government recognized marriage is simply for tax purposes.

I say abolish marriage in government and allow civil unions between ANY two people of legal age and are living together. There are a lot of benefits for inheritance and taxes that should be available to people who are simply good buds dorming together too.

 

[LucyJr]

For the same reasons as straight people

Originally marriage was to do with property rights and the wife was pretty much seen as the property of the man; for example it wasn't legally possible until fairly recently for a husband to rape his wife because legally it was perceived that it was his right

I didn't knew this. Are you reffering to judeo-christian tradition or something else?

So the church was in on the deal because the church is part of the societal control structure but less and less people recognise the church so marriage is largely a legal contract but on top of that there is a certain social cache involved and it is now perceived to be part of our culture...its just one of those things that many people feel they should do because it is the done thing to do
But i think that's changing and the law will need to change to keep pace with changing views for example through civil partnerships

Yes, because most of the West societies are influenced by christian traditions still. In christian traditions marriage has a much more deep meaning and significance. Its significe the unique bond, spiritual between a man and a woman, only between a man and a woman. This is the very nature of marriage as is viewed by christians, betwen opposite sexes, because this is how God made things to be, this is the natural order.

Other than that, in cultures where tradition is unaffected by judeo-christian values, marriage is mere a contractual understanding (sometimes with religious implications), which implies a certain set of commitments and rules for both parteners. The rules vary from society to society. Usually, the act of marriage is set by a civic institution.

The problem lies whithin where it is recognied the religious authority in this matter. Whithout religious implications, the act of marriage its released from its heavy/weighty implications, and it becomes a mere contract. I think what is happening is a clash of values, a war of values.
Like you said, society wants to develop its views. Tolerance and equality are the principal arguments for this. But I don't think the Western society is enough "de-christinised" for this to be readily accepted.

 

[LucyJr]

does it matter? Do they need to explain themself? Maybe and no.

Of course it matters, at least from my perspective.
From a general view, people want to know where are we going with these kind of things. This has many implications, for what is considered to be a normal functioning of society. It is known that same sex marriage can not conceive childrens. And this is not because they are sick or genetically ill, but because naturally these kind of relationships can't produce childrens.
Ok, they resolve that by adopting childrens. But this is healthy, it is good, it is normal for the developing of those childrens?
It is understood that a child needs a father and a mother, not two fathers or two mothers (at least from the traditional point, but also from a biological point of view).
I think there are many new issues when it comes to gay adopting childrens.

Do they need to explain themself? Maybe and no.

I could say exactly how I see things, who needs to explain to who, but probably people would get offended, so...

 

[cvp12gh5]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

LOL Well I wouldn't expect you to thumbs up something that made sense, lol

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

LOL Well I wouldn't expect you to thumbs up something that made sense, lol

You give me allusive hints about my relationship with gay people, where you imply certain things, that I supposedly should recognise.
You didn't answered to my reply in which I asked you to voice what exactly are you accusing me with regard to gay people.

And now you reply me as if things are ok. I don't see how this is normal. That is why I thumbed down your post, not for other reasons.

 

[the]

Of course it matters, at least from my perspective.
From a general view, people want to know where are we going with these kind of things. This has many implications, for what is considered to be a normal functioning of society. It is known that same sex marriage can not conceive childrens. And this is not because they are sick or genetically ill, but because naturally these kind of relationships can't produce childrens.
Ok, they resolve that by adopting childrens. But this is healthy, it is good, it is normal for the developing of those childrens?
It is understood that a child needs a father and a mother, not two fathers or two mothers (at least from the traditional point, but also from a biological point of view).
I think there are many new issues when it comes to gay adopting childrens.


I could say exactly how I see things, who needs to explain to who, but probably people would get offended, so...

I am interested in your offensive opinion. Lets hear itn

 

[LucyJr]

I am interested in your offensive opinion. Lets hear itn

New theories must be verified by tested theories, things that are known to work.

 

[LucyJr]

Homosexual Adoption Puts Children at Risk
Gary Glenn

The eight-member committee that concocted the American Academy of Pediatrics' endorsement of homosexual adoptions is lucky they can't be sued for political malpractice. When it comes to protecting children's health, their politically correct quackery clearly violates the admonition of the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm."

The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the adults - as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior -- experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease, substance abuse, and premature death by up to 20 years.

"The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write activists with the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network.

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders" - including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse.

The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals."

Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men...nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday."

Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical hazards of multiple sex partners?

A Detroit homosexual newsmagazine columnist last month wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships...A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers."

The Center for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."

How will being adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior affect the behavior of children themselves?

Associated Press reported last June that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents...are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves...(and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations."

A major Australian newspaper reported Feb. 4th regarding a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality."

Which means children adopted by adults involved in homosexual behavior face not only second hand exposure to the risks of such behavior by their "parents," but are more likely to suffer first hand by engaging in the same high-risk behavior themselves.

Young people who model the homosexual behavior of their adopted "parents" face other risks.

The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors...engag(ing) in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."

"GLB orientation was associated with increased...use of cocaine (and other illegal) drugs. GLB youth were more likely to report using tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before 13 years of age. Among sexual risk behaviors, sexual intercourse before 13 years of age, sexual intercourse with four or more partners...and sexual contact against one's will all were associated with GLB orientation."

 

[LucyJr]

http://www.usforacle.com/should-same-sex-couples-be-able-to-adopt-children-con-1.2805321#.Uz9ed6L1Xwk

In the streets of Paris this week, an infuriated crowd rocked the streets leading up to the Eiffel Tower to protest a controversial French bill that would legalize gay marriage.

But according to USA Today, the main reason that the spark was ignited was due to the fact that the bill would allow homosexual couples to adopt and conceive children.

A crowd of almost 340,000 gathered in Paris and walked approximately three miles to the monument while chanting “Daddy, Mommy,” carrying flags, signs and even their own young children in order to really make a statement.They believed that every child should grow up with a mother and a father.

And I couldn’t agree more.

While disapproving of the protest itself, I do see a huge parallel between my beliefs and those of the protestors. While I have nothing against gay marriage, the rest of the bill, which allows adoption, consists of a terrible idea.

Psychologically speaking, imagine the trauma that a child would have to go through to explain his or her family to others for the rest of the child’s life. It just sounds odd saying that one has “two mommies” or “two daddies.”

According to a recent study from a sociology professor at the University of Texas-Austin, children of single-sex parents households may be more likely to have social and emotional problems.

Though it is controversial, and most experts agree that more research is needed in this area, the problem is the lack of a sound population of families with two same-sex parents.

The worst part is the effect it will have on the children. Naturally, a child of homosexual parents is going to want to find their real, biological parents. They will also face social stigma at school, where almost everyone else will be living with heterosexual parents, and have even more confusion in finding their identity.

According to a study done at the University of California in 2008, lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

Not having a clear idea of how to distinguish between the socially created norms of mother and father can leave a child wondering about everything from where they come from to eventually questioning their own sexual identity.

Most same-sex couples with adopted children are lesbians, but gay men make up a growing share, accounting for nearly one-third of such couples in 2010, up from one-fifth in 2000.

If both parents were females it can be said it would be easier for the child, because hopefully he or she at least has one biological parent, but homosexual couples that are male would have additional barriers to conceiving a child, and would have to use the services of a surrogate mother or something similar, which would add additional obstacles for the child.

The bill will also, in respect to homosexual couples, any paperwork relating to the government will now include obscure terms such as — Parent 1, Parent 2 and so on.

I agree with the protestors that lamented it will bring an end to the terms of mother and father.

After a protest of this magnitude, the French president would do well to reconsider this bill and its consequences.