To those who support Equal Marriage
03-24-05, 07:55 AM
#52
EliteHardcoreCannuckSquad
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Acton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,126
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Got my first e-mail back from and MP today:
Well, the assistant to an MP, which isn't bad...
Thank you for your email. I appreciate you exercising your rights as a Canadian and communicating your concerns with my office.
Sincerely,
Marta Krystia, Exec. Assistant to
Joy Smith, M.P.
Kildonan-St. Paul
Sincerely,
Marta Krystia, Exec. Assistant to
Joy Smith, M.P.
Kildonan-St. Paul
03-24-05, 07:58 AM
#53
EliteHardcoreCannuckSquad
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Acton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,126
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
I'm loving the discusssions going on in this thread.
It's great to see a debate of this caliber with the name calling being kept to a minimum and no real fight breaking out...
Try doing this in any of ther american forums...
It's great to see a debate of this caliber with the name calling being kept to a minimum and no real fight breaking out...
Try doing this in any of ther american forums...
03-24-05, 09:26 AM
#54
Originally Posted by smnc
Got my first e-mail back from and MP today:
Well, the assistant to an MP, which isn't bad...
Well, the assistant to an MP, which isn't bad...
He was quite surprised and pleased that he got a response - and a positive one at that!
03-24-05, 09:44 AM
#55
More Mazdas than Sense
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sunny Downtown Fenwick
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote the minister of transport about the "anti-street racing" law that was to be passed a while ago. The one that would allow the government to decide arbitrarily what was and wasn't allowed on street cars. Got a quick and helpful response.
03-24-05, 12:06 PM
#57
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by smnc
Got my first e-mail back from and MP today:
Well, the assistant to an MP, which isn't bad...
Well, the assistant to an MP, which isn't bad...
It's an automated reply. Look at the subject line - it's the wrong bill.
I wrote her back and politely gave her **** for that, thinking that they'd somehow confused the current bill with one that had been killed 4 months ago. I got the same automated reply again.
03-24-05, 12:07 PM
#58
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by smnc
I'm loving the discusssions going on in this thread.
It's great to see a debate of this caliber with the name calling being kept to a minimum and no real fight breaking out...
Try doing this in any of ther american forums...
It's great to see a debate of this caliber with the name calling being kept to a minimum and no real fight breaking out...
Try doing this in any of ther american forums...
03-24-05, 12:40 PM
#59
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Aviator 902S
Amur! Your sarcasm is showing. So out of character.
Of course kids adopted by gay couples aren't the only ones to be ostracized. Many others are also harassed and one of their tormentors' favourite tactics (besides physical violence) is name-calling--- and the preferred names are typically "***", "Gay", "Homo" and "Queer." This perpetuates the myth among kids that gays are the antichrist and to these kids, being considered gay is to be considered an outcast by all.
I used to call other kids gay and ****** in high school. And the last time I checked, at least of few of us still throw those names at each other. But now it's for humour instead of to hurt. I used to tell Paki jokes and all the rest. And you know what else - I didn't know any better. That's the thing about child - they tend to not know much, and they tend to be immature.
The way to end teasing and bullying is not by sheltering the victims. That doesn't help anyone. It's by dealing with the aggressors. Schools are finally starting to do that now.
What you are proposing is to try to protect children from experiencing childhood. That's a fool's errand.
Many teen suicides and homicides are the result of just such harassment.
Ken Plummer describes a situation likely associated with youth suicide problems in England: "The kind of behaviour we are seeing against kids, who may not even be gay, just different (and therefore labelled) is savage and unrelenting. It is more what we might expect of a jail system than the supposed safe haven we expect schools to be for our kids. It is not a safe place for kids who are perceived to be gay. School culture is virulently anti-gay.". (SMH 5/4/97) A remarkable similar situation exists in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.
I think you're pursuing a false issue here. Peer harassment isn't unique to children of gay couples. Shall we also block immigrants who aren't caucasian from settling in certain regions in order to spare their children from any harassment? How about kids with curly hair? With braces? Where will we send them? Perhaps they should be home schooled. It's in their best interests, after all...
Once being gay is looked upon by most kids as not a big deal, THEN we can fix the issue of gay couples adopting kids.
Children don't call each other gay b/c they hate homosexuals. They call each other gay b/c they are *children*.
But every once in a while he'd come up with a gem--- like this one directed at his ultra-Liberal son-in-law "Meathead", when he informed Archie that "Last year over 10,000 Americans were killed by handguns." Archie's response? "Would it make ya feel any better if they wuz all pushed outta windows?"
03-24-05, 12:48 PM
#60
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by eViLRotor
Belinda Stronach is kind if HOT
screw the gay stuff
Last edited by Amur_; 03-24-05 at 12:57 PM.
03-24-05, 01:08 PM
#61
EliteHardcoreCannuckSquad
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Acton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,126
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
It's an automated reply. Look at the subject line - it's the wrong bill.
I wrote her back and politely gave her **** for that, thinking that they'd somehow confused the current bill with one that had been killed 4 months ago. I got the same automated reply again.
I wrote her back and politely gave her **** for that, thinking that they'd somehow confused the current bill with one that had been killed 4 months ago. I got the same automated reply again.
03-24-05, 01:16 PM
#63
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
That would be b/c the issue had to be dealt with. It's been gaining momentum for decades. It is a simple truth that in a country that prides itself on honouring individual freedom and self-determination, a significant segment of our society has been rigourously denied these things that are supposed to apply to all people under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How could people of good conscience not work to reform such outdated legislation?
Originally Posted by Aviator 902S
The above federal debts of both countries sound about right, although Canada's fed debt is closer to 500 billion according to the last quote I read about a month ago. But when you take into account debt from ALL levels of government it doesn't look quite so rosy for us. The federal debt reduction seemingly accomplished by Martin and company over the last 12 years has been achieved by simply unloading it onto the provinces and us peasants via reduced health care, higher taxes, selling the Air Navigation huge increases in CPP premiums (a tax by any other name, since CPP payouts aren't likely to go up by anywhere near the same margin) and by cutting military spending and national security to the bone. This means that Canada's actual per-capita debt load is considerably higher than the feds would have us believe.
You want the Canadian assclown.
03-24-05, 04:05 PM
#66
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
The myth among kids. Which kids are those? Kids will exploit any differences to attack one another - common sense is seldom a factor. But I can't see any walking around toting 'myths' that gays are all 'antichrists' except maybe those with family that are ultra-conservative or whacked-out religious. I haven't encountered it and I haven't heard talk of it. And I *am* in a position to hear about it if it were a common occurence.
Ok, some further explanation: You're right--- kids don't associate homosexuality with religion. The antichrist comment was an exaggeration of mine to emphasize that they look upon being gay as unacceptable and therefore cause for ridicule and harassment. It's just one more arrow they can shoot at kids who they dislike for whatever reason.
I used to call other kids gay and ****** in high school. And the last time I checked, at least of few of us still throw those names at each other. But now it's for humour instead of to hurt. I used to tell Paki jokes and all the rest. And you know what else - I didn't know any better. That's the thing about child - they tend to not know much, and they tend to be immature.
I think most of us were guilty of that immaturity in grade school to a degree, and usually it was done in humour with no malicious intent. But where there is malicious intent these labels are used with much venom.
The way to end teasing and bullying is not by sheltering the victims. That doesn't help anyone. It's by dealing with the aggressors. Schools are finally starting to do that now.
Granted, sheltering the victims isn't the answer, at least not by removing them from the situation. They still don't get the help they need to develop as a responsible adult and to properly learn how to take a joke. But we do need to deal with the aggressors in such a way that they come to understand and respect that they do not have the right to violate the rights of other kids.
What you are proposing is to try to protect children from experiencing childhood. That's a fool's errand.
Nope--- but they should experience childhood with the same level of acceptance and adversity as their classmates rather than as outcasts to be harassed and assaulted on a regular basis. The alternative is increasingly hostile and murderous/ suicidal kids. Columbine was a classic example and one that is alarmingly on the rise.
I think you're pursuing a false issue here. Peer harassment isn't unique to children of gay couples. Shall we also block immigrants who aren't caucasian from settling in certain regions in order to spare their children from any harassment? How about kids with curly hair? With braces? Where will we send them? Perhaps they should be home schooled. It's in their best interests, after all.
This is actually a valid point. We can't simply home-school all kids who are chronic victims of harassment, and it's not just kids with gay parents who are the victims here.
I don't believe that children look on being gay as a big deal in the first place. Rather, it's a difference that can be used to target another kid. Children aren't known for their wisdom. They tend to not have been in the world for very long, and they tend to be just beginning to interact socially in contexts that don't focus solely on themselves.
Exactly.
Children don't call each other gay b/c they hate homosexuals. They call each other gay b/c they are *children*
Actually, many of them DO hate homosexuals, as well as anybody else they see as different or "wierd." They may not be completely clued in to what it means to have a sexual orientation that's not considered mainstream by most, but as you stated earlier they do see it as yet another excuse to harass those whose face or personality they don't like. But this hatred is a LEARNED CONDITION, which they pick up from their redneck parents, friends and others who have an agenda based on ignorance and intolerance.
THAT was funny.
03-24-05, 05:54 PM
#68
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Aviator 902S
Granted, sheltering the victims isn't the answer, at least not by removing them from the situation. They still don't get the help they need to develop as a responsible adult and to properly learn how to take a joke.
This is chasing the false issue again. Children of GLBT couples are a very rare commodity at present, and I've yet to see any studies or statistics about their psychosocial development at all. I have no idea as to where you could be getting information that asserts all these terrible things.
I believe that you are taking the horror stories of what has happened to some GLBT youth and are transferring them onto these children, along with a dose of what I'd call, 'urban paranoia.'
This is actually a valid point.
Actually, many of them DO hate homosexuals
I have made an effort to cite statistics and resources where is has been both suitable and available. You have been painting with very broad strokes as often as you've seen fit. Your argument is undermined before it's even fully out the door (in my eyes.) Please make an effort to be specific, and to show some kind of valid affirmation of your statements. This is becoming like trying to have a discussion with Randy Quaid's drunken pilot character from Independence Day.
Or possibly Archie Bunker.
But this hatred is a LEARNED CONDITION, which they pick up from their redneck parents
I'm hoping to have some more substantial information about these children in the next day or two. Talking about it in this way is pointless b/c we are both, to varying degrees
, too ignorant on the subject to make many worthwhile statements.'Til then, food for thought:
http://www.utc.edu/StudentOrgs/Spectrum/apa.htm
Finally, if one thinks about the vast real problems confronting our society and attacking our family structure--problems such as family violence, divorce, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, homelessness, and isolation, it becomes clear that individuals who are obsessed with how a minority of our citizens express love and sexuality have, indeed, established a most peculiar set of priorities, both for themselves and for others.
Healthy and secure heterosexuals do not feel threatened by homosexuality. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to oppress homosexuals. Healthy heterosexuals don't need to "repair" homosexuals.
The real issue confronting our society today is not why people seek love and understanding as they do, but why some seem so unable to love and understand.
From a statement published January 26, 1990, by Bryant Welch, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director for Professional Practice, American Psychological Association.
03-24-05, 08:20 PM
#70
Max BBQ
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto Canada
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright you bastards.
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
03-24-05, 09:55 PM
#71
EliteHardcoreCannuckSquad
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Acton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,126
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by charr33
Alright you bastards.
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
Are you a poet?
You put that so perfectly....
And no, I'm not being sarcastic...
03-24-05, 10:06 PM
#72
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Amur_]
One you seem to have missed the point of. If the gov is going to bar marriage on the basis that it protects potential children from potential unpleasantry, how far could such a cause be pressed? How far can a well-intentioned rule be carried before it becomes oppressive? I am certain that the distance is far shorter than you believe.
Here we go again... Serves me right for breaking my own rule about never arguing with a Liberal. But one more series of replies and then I'll leave it at that:
First, go back and read through my first few posts and then show me where I said gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. And if you're gay I promise I'd never hold it against you so relax. My point was that there are no easy answers to balancing the rights of gay couples to adopt kids with those kids' rights to not be ostracized over it or any other issue for that matter. If you disagree that's your right, and unlike some people I respect the rights of others to their opinions. Do you?
Really? Which ones? How many? Where are they?
I have made an effort to cite statistics and resources where is has been both suitable and available. You have been painting with very broad strokes as often as you've seen fit. Your argument is undermined before it's even fully out the door (in my eyes.) Please make an effort to be specific, and to show some kind of valid affirmation of your statements. This is becoming like trying to have a discussion with Randy Quaid's drunken pilot character from Independence Day.
Or possibly Archie Bunker.
Again, welcome to Canada, where you're granted the right to any opinion you wish to have--- as long as it doesn't clash with those of the lib left. My points don't have statistics attached because they're based on life-long neutral observation rather than on statistics compiled by those with their own agenda. I find most statistics and studies (whether done by those on the left or the right) to contain just enough truth to lend credibility to the bullshit.
I paint with very broad strokes because that's what is necessary to examine and understand both sides of the issue, and neither side is completely right or wrong. In fact, most of those on the right find me to be too Liberal and sympathetic to certain Liberal causes, like gay marriage, for example.
Problem is, some people are so insecure they can't stand to be wrong about even one point. These are the ones most likely to draw on biased statistics and accuse their opponents of bigotry and homophobia. If their opponent is 99% in agreement they immediately want to know what happened to the other 1%, and then draw the conclusion that if your not 100% for their cause you're 100% against it. They expect tolerance from everyone else, yet they are among the least tolerant people in existence, Muslim extremists notwithstanding.
This is why I rarely allow myself to get into a heated argument with a Liberal. I understand instictively that it's pointless and mundane, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Kinda like Archie Bunker in that regard I guess, but don't tell my Conservative aquaintances that--- they'll all die laughing while labelling me with the "L" word.
I'm hoping to have some more substantial information about these children in the next day or two. Talking about it in this way is pointless b/c we are both, to varying degrees , too ignorant on the subject to make many worthwhile statements.
I disagree that either you or me are truly ignorant on the subject, and while we don't agree on everything we both have some correct and valid views. As for information on these children who could become seriously harassed by their peers over the fact that their mother's name is Robert or their Dad's name is Shirley, you're right--- there simply aren't yet enough cases in point to back up that particular concern. All we have to draw on so far is the track record of bullies in schools and their well-documented tactics. Most of us have witnessed this.
It's like the habitual rapist who just got out of prison--- his track record says he's likely to do it again, but without proof or a crime actually committed by him again we can't actually do a damn thing. Again, no easy answers.
One you seem to have missed the point of. If the gov is going to bar marriage on the basis that it protects potential children from potential unpleasantry, how far could such a cause be pressed? How far can a well-intentioned rule be carried before it becomes oppressive? I am certain that the distance is far shorter than you believe.
Here we go again... Serves me right for breaking my own rule about never arguing with a Liberal. But one more series of replies and then I'll leave it at that:
First, go back and read through my first few posts and then show me where I said gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. And if you're gay I promise I'd never hold it against you so relax. My point was that there are no easy answers to balancing the rights of gay couples to adopt kids with those kids' rights to not be ostracized over it or any other issue for that matter. If you disagree that's your right, and unlike some people I respect the rights of others to their opinions. Do you?
Really? Which ones? How many? Where are they?
I have made an effort to cite statistics and resources where is has been both suitable and available. You have been painting with very broad strokes as often as you've seen fit. Your argument is undermined before it's even fully out the door (in my eyes.) Please make an effort to be specific, and to show some kind of valid affirmation of your statements. This is becoming like trying to have a discussion with Randy Quaid's drunken pilot character from Independence Day.
Or possibly Archie Bunker.
Again, welcome to Canada, where you're granted the right to any opinion you wish to have--- as long as it doesn't clash with those of the lib left. My points don't have statistics attached because they're based on life-long neutral observation rather than on statistics compiled by those with their own agenda. I find most statistics and studies (whether done by those on the left or the right) to contain just enough truth to lend credibility to the bullshit.
I paint with very broad strokes because that's what is necessary to examine and understand both sides of the issue, and neither side is completely right or wrong. In fact, most of those on the right find me to be too Liberal and sympathetic to certain Liberal causes, like gay marriage, for example.
Problem is, some people are so insecure they can't stand to be wrong about even one point. These are the ones most likely to draw on biased statistics and accuse their opponents of bigotry and homophobia. If their opponent is 99% in agreement they immediately want to know what happened to the other 1%, and then draw the conclusion that if your not 100% for their cause you're 100% against it. They expect tolerance from everyone else, yet they are among the least tolerant people in existence, Muslim extremists notwithstanding.
This is why I rarely allow myself to get into a heated argument with a Liberal. I understand instictively that it's pointless and mundane, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Kinda like Archie Bunker in that regard I guess, but don't tell my Conservative aquaintances that--- they'll all die laughing while labelling me with the "L" word.
I'm hoping to have some more substantial information about these children in the next day or two. Talking about it in this way is pointless b/c we are both, to varying degrees
, too ignorant on the subject to make many worthwhile statements.I disagree that either you or me are truly ignorant on the subject, and while we don't agree on everything we both have some correct and valid views. As for information on these children who could become seriously harassed by their peers over the fact that their mother's name is Robert or their Dad's name is Shirley, you're right--- there simply aren't yet enough cases in point to back up that particular concern. All we have to draw on so far is the track record of bullies in schools and their well-documented tactics. Most of us have witnessed this.
It's like the habitual rapist who just got out of prison--- his track record says he's likely to do it again, but without proof or a crime actually committed by him again we can't actually do a damn thing. Again, no easy answers.
03-24-05, 10:57 PM
#73
GrapefruitRacing?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PartSource
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by charr33
Alright you bastards.
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
Canadian assclown I may be, but I'm still big pimpin, and dont you forget it!
Issue #1. People care too much about what other people are doing.
My answer. Mind you own business. I could care less what other people do.
It doesnt effect me one bit. Religeous implications? Puh-lease!
Most religeons dont agree with pre-marital sex, but strangely, that isnt illigal and the most of the MP's are probably out right now cheating on their wives.
I dont see how other people "living in sin" effects my daily life, or my religeous values.
Issue #2 - The children.
Kids are forced to grow up in all kinds of environments. Low income families. Single parents. Alcoholics. Abusive fathers. Junkies. Parents who work 17 hours a day. Rich spoiled rotten. Etc etc etc. They all manage to figure out a way to survive.
Imagine the horror, of a black couple having a black kid in a white neighborhood!!!!What will the neighbors think! Damn that kid is gonna get picked on...Better make it illigal for non-white couples to pro-create outside of designated areas...
I cant even be bothered to type anymore about this.
I personally disagree with gay marriage, but all that means, is that I wont be getting married to a dude...For the other 30 million people in Canada, go nuts, I dont care. I wish you all the best.
If you want to have a kid, go for it. Love the child and provide them with what they need to grow up healthy. Everything they need to know will be learned on the playground and tv anyways...
My only issue with your statement was in "Issue #2" as there are laws and services to protect children from abusive and alchoholic parents etc, and then comparing that to rich and spoiled kids and comparing those 2 to same sex couples who wanna get married and adopt children. Not too sure i understood what you meant. However as you said they all learn to survive, wether 1 way or another, in the end!
Just thought I'd voice my opinion through yours since i didn't wanna try and argue something as i don't see this thread/argument accomplishing very much other then driving some people who might take some things too much to heart and too personally away from other people they'd otherwise get along with, again just MO
Having said that and since I opened my big fat mouth I might as well at least take some time to let Amur know I don't see, from my own expiriences arguing with adults, much of a point to trying to change most peoples opinions on this. As, try to realize, some people just "know stuff" and aren't likely to change their minds unless whoever they blindly follow tells them to, unfortunatly. However I admire you for taking the time and patience to at least try.
As for myself Charr33 pretty much hit the nail right on the head with a 20lb sludge.
Happy arguing, I hope I didn't step on anyones toes and if I did I apolagize
03-26-05, 11:23 AM
#74
Refined Valley Dude
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kitchener, Ontario (Hamilton's armpit)
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
[QUOTE=Aviator 902S]
I had another look. You're right. You didn't say that. Bar adoption, not marriage. I apologize for my confusion.
Stop flirting. 
I thought we were discussing it. Or arguing it, or whatever. You're able to walk away at any time should you want to. How does discussing your opinion count as disrespecting your right to your opinion? I'm not following...
Yup, that's me. Crushing your rights just by talking to you.
Based on your own observation? So how many children of GLBT parents have you observed? Should be at least one.
How about personal experiences instead, then? I've had some interesting (and pleasing) stories come my way since Thursday.
Those poor kids!
Good luck getting a grant with that plan.
Not sure if this is directed at me. Is it? If not, I'm not sure of what it has to do with talking about the development of the children of GLBT parents. 
You say that, and yet when presented with a growing body of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, your responses come down to, "I know what I've seen [of children who don't have GLBT parents] and I know I'm right about this." Am I really the inflexible one?
Heated? This is the intraweb. 
Don't worry - I'll let you come out when you're ready to.
It's been my feeling that my actual experience with this issue is fleeting at best. And I'm pretty sure that I have more gay friends and aquaintances than you do (although you haven't said if you've had any at all.) I question how anyone can be so certain about something they haven't witnessed and when they dismiss any scientific study (however small) that contradicts their belief.
We've already had, "All studies are bunk," and I'm expecting something along the lines of, "Those are isolated cases," in reply to the stories those two kind ladies shared. To what degree, what scope, must the information be repeated? B/c that's all I've really been doing - repeating the same conclusion, whether it's the personal experiences of same-sex parents, or the scientific study of groups of such people. And the conclusion has been consistent - these children are not doomed to lives of rejection and misery. On the contrary, they have a great deal to look forward to. As much as any other children, if not more.
http://www.swedish.org/110330.cfm
[this is NOT an attack ->] You've said that you know better than that. I believe that you can't.
The growing body of information, both anecdotal and that from study, is showing that in fact such children can look forward to normal, healthy development. Either in spite of or because of the responses of their peers and community.
Pardon my asking, but how long has it been since you witnessed it? I'm guessing not too recently - I know it's been a while for me.
I think that the lady in the second story above hit the nail on the head.
What will determine whether or not these children are targeted is how they present themselves to their peers. Since the term is getting a fair bit of use so far; we all know that bullies target those whom they see as weak and vulnerable, shy and withdrawn. How likely is a child raised in a household that fosters love, pride and courage in the face of social adversity to present a timid face to their peers? Not very likely at all, I'd say. And what studies have been done demonstrate that the children of same-sex couples are far more likely to present the kind of thriving individual that a bully is least likely to try to engage.
Yes, we can do something. It's called the Dangerous Offender act. Now it's just up to our police and judicial services to make proper use of it.
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publica...s/199674_e.asp
What I remember of bullies is that they were seldom harshly dealt with b/c of apathy on the part of teachers and principals. That attitude is changing.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...c-1ba6d11ba0a6
Attitudes are changing. The world we grew up in isn't the same as we remember it to be. The children of same-sex parents are not going to face psychological annihilation the moment they step out of their homes. They must go with caution and care and with a glad heart. Just like any other child, any other person, should.
Originally Posted by Amur_
First, go back and read through my first few posts and then show me where I said gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
And if you're gay I promise I'd never hold it against you so relax.
My point was that there are no easy answers to balancing the rights of gay couples to adopt kids with those kids' rights to not be ostracized over it or any other issue for that matter. If you disagree that's your right, and unlike some people I respect the rights of others to their opinions. Do you?
Again, welcome to Canada, where you're granted the right to any opinion you wish to have--- as long as it doesn't clash with those of the lib left.
My points don't have statistics attached because they're based on life-long neutral observation rather than on statistics compiled by those with their own agenda.
I find most statistics and studies (whether done by those on the left or the right) to contain just enough truth to lend credibility to the bullshit.
The two daughters I had with my ex-partner did not have any noticable problems being accepted by their peers until my oldest daughter's last year in middle school (8th grade) when a small clique of girls saw the Time magazine cover with Melissa Ethridge and her pregnant partner on it, and started making jokes and remarks about it in Katie's hearing. It did bother her partly because right after that, my partner ended the relationship and she had to start her first year of high school in a very emotionally unsettled situation.
Both of our girls were in parochial school, and we were friends with other parents, involved in sports and other social stuff involving the school. You'd think if there were going to be a lot of flack directed at the girls, it would have happened there but by and large, it didn't.
Having moved to Minneapolis and the public school system, my youngest daughter hasn't said anything about having problems there either. Of course, I live in Ohio so it's not an actively lesbian family she's being raised in but she's been very open with her schoolmates that her parents are lesbian and divorced, and that she'll be moving back to Ohio when she finishes high school.
I think it really depends, as much as anything, on the environment, the kinds of other kids in their peer group and what their parents are like as to how much harassment or lack of same our children experience.
----------------
Of course you can share it. My daughters were, for the most part, accepted in Ohio Catholic schools, and in Minneapolis public schools and in a private Catholic women's college in St. Paul. And neither of them was ever overtly harrassed because their moms are lesbian.
Both of our girls were in parochial school, and we were friends with other parents, involved in sports and other social stuff involving the school. You'd think if there were going to be a lot of flack directed at the girls, it would have happened there but by and large, it didn't.
Having moved to Minneapolis and the public school system, my youngest daughter hasn't said anything about having problems there either. Of course, I live in Ohio so it's not an actively lesbian family she's being raised in but she's been very open with her schoolmates that her parents are lesbian and divorced, and that she'll be moving back to Ohio when she finishes high school.
I think it really depends, as much as anything, on the environment, the kinds of other kids in their peer group and what their parents are like as to how much harassment or lack of same our children experience.
----------------
Of course you can share it. My daughters were, for the most part, accepted in Ohio Catholic schools, and in Minneapolis public schools and in a private Catholic women's college in St. Paul. And neither of them was ever overtly harrassed because their moms are lesbian.
Good morning...I am the mother of two teens..and co-parent with my partner..we have been in a long long term same-sex relationship...ie we were pioneers in having kids in out same-sex family...ie my kids are 18 and 15...from our experience...if you present yourself and your family in a proud, up front, "in your face"..in a friendly way of course...people are hard pressed to slag you...sure they can do it behind your back and i am sure many did..we just did not hear that but what we did hear and see was a whole community of people who like us, accepted us, worked with us, sympathized with us etc etc..did the kids face some problems..sure they did..but a minimal amount...and we offset that with good communication with them and alot of positive reinforcement..the sad thing..the rejection and non-acceptance came from my partner's family..continues to this day but hey what did someone say you can choose your friends but not your family...having kids is by far the most fullfilling and amazing experience of my life..don't let all kinds of obstacles stand in your way from experiencing this..and by the way..my kids are two very very accomplished and happy young people any mom would be proud of..
-----------------------
Just another point I would like to make...I was speaking with a friend who asked me..how did you do it...have kids as a couple and face all of the issues...( she herself had ended a long marriage and brought her 10 year old into her first same-sex relationship and she did so with a great deal of shame for having done this..)..I told her that from the start..when we were planning kids we said we would do this to among other things honour our children..we would be happy, proud, and over the moon about our kids..( and that was before we had them!). And we did that...no one was ever going to tell us different or make us feel different..and we just protected the kids as much as we could from negativity and promoted how fabulous it was to have two moms..in fact one day in our garden with my young daughters grade 1 class, (during a visit with the 25 kids) one little girl stood up and pouted that it was not fair that our daughter had two moms..she wanted two also because it was such a great thing to have two amazing moms!..so you see it is how you put yourself and your kids and family out there! Are you proud or ashamed and afraid?
-----------------------
Just another point I would like to make...I was speaking with a friend who asked me..how did you do it...have kids as a couple and face all of the issues...( she herself had ended a long marriage and brought her 10 year old into her first same-sex relationship and she did so with a great deal of shame for having done this..)..I told her that from the start..when we were planning kids we said we would do this to among other things honour our children..we would be happy, proud, and over the moon about our kids..( and that was before we had them!). And we did that...no one was ever going to tell us different or make us feel different..and we just protected the kids as much as we could from negativity and promoted how fabulous it was to have two moms..in fact one day in our garden with my young daughters grade 1 class, (during a visit with the 25 kids) one little girl stood up and pouted that it was not fair that our daughter had two moms..she wanted two also because it was such a great thing to have two amazing moms!..so you see it is how you put yourself and your kids and family out there! Are you proud or ashamed and afraid?
I paint with very broad strokes because that's what is necessary to examine and understand both sides of the issue, and neither side is completely right or wrong.
Problem is, some people are so insecure they can't stand to be wrong about even one point. These are the ones most likely to draw on biased statistics and accuse their opponents of bigotry and homophobia.
You say that, and yet when presented with a growing body of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, your responses come down to, "I know what I've seen [of children who don't have GLBT parents] and I know I'm right about this." Am I really the inflexible one?
This is why I rarely allow myself to get into a heated argument with a Liberal. I understand instictively that it's pointless and mundane, but sometimes I just can't help myself.
I think good debate ultimately makes for better ideas. And the fact that he's [Howard Dean] a little spirited in his debate, some people see that as an advantage on the Republican side. Some see it as a disadvantage. The bottom line is, more involvement is a good thing.
- Mark Sanford
- Mark Sanford
Kinda like Archie Bunker in that regard I guess, but don't tell my Conservative aquaintances that--- they'll all die laughing while labelling me with the "L" word.
I disagree that either you or me are truly ignorant on the subject, and while we don't agree on everything we both have some correct and valid views.
We've already had, "All studies are bunk," and I'm expecting something along the lines of, "Those are isolated cases," in reply to the stories those two kind ladies shared. To what degree, what scope, must the information be repeated? B/c that's all I've really been doing - repeating the same conclusion, whether it's the personal experiences of same-sex parents, or the scientific study of groups of such people. And the conclusion has been consistent - these children are not doomed to lives of rejection and misery. On the contrary, they have a great deal to look forward to. As much as any other children, if not more.
Also, in the Netherlands someone just finished a study about lesbian parents with youngh children (0-8 ) specifically, and the main conclusion was, that there are no differences in development of a child, and only small differences in the way the children are generally raised. Apparently with two women as parents children are more liberally raised. The parents allow them to follow their own path more. With heterosexual couples the father was usually the person setting boundaries more. Also, the two moms would talk more to each other about raising the kids and would not have automatic role patterns. The researcher didn't find any negative or positive consequences for the child, other than that it's just a different style of raising children.
She also researched the difference between the feelings of the biological mother and the non-biological mother (in case the children were not adopted) and she found that often the non-biological mother was just as involved in everything, but that she said to have problems knowing whether it was her place to meddle in the upbringing and also that she often overdid the mothering a bit to make up for the fact that she wasn't the biological mother.
The researcher is now going to study whether there are any consequences for adolescent children.
She also researched the difference between the feelings of the biological mother and the non-biological mother (in case the children were not adopted) and she found that often the non-biological mother was just as involved in everything, but that she said to have problems knowing whether it was her place to meddle in the upbringing and also that she often overdid the mothering a bit to make up for the fact that she wasn't the biological mother.
The researcher is now going to study whether there are any consequences for adolescent children.
http://www.swedish.org/110330.cfm
[this is NOT an attack ->] You've said that you know better than that. I believe that you can't.
As for information on these children who could become seriously harassed by their peers over the fact that their mother's name is Robert or their Dad's name is Shirley, you're right--- there simply aren't yet enough cases in point to back up that particular concern.
All we have to draw on so far is the track record of bullies in schools and their well-documented tactics. Most of us have witnessed this.
I think that the lady in the second story above hit the nail on the head.
you present yourself and your family in a proud, up front, "in your face"..in a friendly way of course...people are hard pressed to slag you
However, adolescents who had warmer, closer family relationships ”irrespective of their parents sexual orientation” were more likely to have made positive adjustments at school and at home.
It's like the habitual rapist who just got out of prison--- his track record says he's likely to do it again, but without proof or a crime actually committed by him again we can't actually do a damn thing. Again, no easy answers.
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publica...s/199674_e.asp
What I remember of bullies is that they were seldom harshly dealt with b/c of apathy on the part of teachers and principals. That attitude is changing.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawac...c-1ba6d11ba0a6
Anti-bullying programs useless, study finds
...Still, Mr. Smith isn't advocating scrapping whole-school anti-bullying programs.
"It's too early to throw it all out and say it's not working because these are large programs, and they have all these different components. My guess is there are some things going on in there that work," he said in an interview.
For example, he said the potentially positive long-term impact of whole-school programs on a school climate would take time to show up in evaluation studies.
"That's going to take quite a bit of time, and only when that climate is well-developed. Then you're going to start seeing some of the impacts, and these evaluation studies simply haven't tracked programs long enough. So this is why we can't throw these out yet. We just haven't studied them thoroughly enough," said Mr. Smith.
In another presentation, psychologist Wendy Craig, a bullying specialist at Queen's University, presented new findings of a separate review of 46 other studies probing the effectiveness of general anti-bullying school programs. Twenty-six -- or 56 per cent -- were considered successful, reporting positive results in reducing bullying and victimization.
...Still, Mr. Smith isn't advocating scrapping whole-school anti-bullying programs.
"It's too early to throw it all out and say it's not working because these are large programs, and they have all these different components. My guess is there are some things going on in there that work," he said in an interview.
For example, he said the potentially positive long-term impact of whole-school programs on a school climate would take time to show up in evaluation studies.
"That's going to take quite a bit of time, and only when that climate is well-developed. Then you're going to start seeing some of the impacts, and these evaluation studies simply haven't tracked programs long enough. So this is why we can't throw these out yet. We just haven't studied them thoroughly enough," said Mr. Smith.
In another presentation, psychologist Wendy Craig, a bullying specialist at Queen's University, presented new findings of a separate review of 46 other studies probing the effectiveness of general anti-bullying school programs. Twenty-six -- or 56 per cent -- were considered successful, reporting positive results in reducing bullying and victimization.
Last edited by Amur_; 03-26-05 at 11:27 AM.
03-26-05, 09:17 PM
#75
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Amur_
I had another look. You're right. You didn't say that. Bar adoption, not marriage. I apologize for my confusion.
Don't mention it, no apology necessary. Given that you were under the impression that I'd deny gays the right to marry your previous responses are understandable.
Stop flirting.
You wish.
I thought we were discussing it. Or arguing it, or whatever. You're able to walk away at any time should you want to. How does discussing your opinion count as disrespecting your right to your opinion? I'm not following...
Yeah, I probably over-reacted. Being a student in a mid-life career change and surrounded by intolerant and ultra-left under-25 types who win debates via name-calling, disrespectful demeanors and not letting their opponents get a word in edge-wise (lest they have a valid point) seems to have that effect on me. Best to wait until they are over 30 before talking politics with them. People who are merely "discussing" a topic never resort to name-calling or derisive comments--- that would be tantamount to intolerance.
Yup, that's me. Crushing your rights just by talking to you.
See above.
Based on your own observation? So how many children of GLBT parents have you observed? Should be at least one.
I've known kids with one gay parent or sibling, but I've yet to know one with gay parents married to each other so yeah, in that exact situation my conclusions based on observation are limited to seeing the reaction of bully types to kids who either a) have one gay parent or sibling, b) are gay or suspected to be gay, or c) just "different or limited in either the looks, personality or intelligence department.
This seems to be a bigger problem in the more rural locals than in the suburbs, where there is more diversity. I grew up in a small town and saw first-hand how a group of intolerant punks could turn on one of their own friends once they got the impression he or a family member might be gay. Maybe it's not as bad now as it used to be, at least we can hope. But every time there's a well-documented incident like Columbine the words "gay" and "homo" seem to lurk beneath the surface.
It's not that gay parents would be incapable of being good and nurturing to their kids, in fact they're probably better equipped in many ways to teach kids tolerance, understanding and caring for others than many straight couples are, and you're right--- they shouldn't be denied the right to adopt, especially considering the number of straight parents who aren't worthy of the title. I stand corrected.
But for the sake of the kids we need to tame the bullies. Good luck getting a grant with that plan.
LOL. Yeah, no kidding--- especially the way our government operates.
Don't worry - I'll let you come out when you're ready to.
Uh, not likely--- I lean too far to the right to fit in with ultra-Liberals, but too far to the left to fit in with those in the ultra (or even middle) right group.
It's been my feeling that my actual experience with this issue is fleeting at best. And I'm pretty sure that I have more gay friends and aquaintances than you do (although you haven't said if you've had any at all.) I question how anyone can be so certain about something they haven't witnessed and when they dismiss any scientific study (however small) that contradicts their belief.
You sound more informed than most, and you probably do have more gay friends than I do, although I have had friends who are gay. A couple of them several years ago (Mike and Randy in Vancouver) could have gone into stand-up comedy if they wanted to, they were that good. Decent guys too, treated people with respect and dignity. Some of the hottest girls we knew were frustrated because they thought M&R were gorgeous and wanted to "turn them straight" to no avail. (My feeble attempts to convince said girls that I was gay in an attempt to get laid didn't pan out unfortunately, but that's another story
)As for dismissing studies, that comes from years of living by the credo "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear" and due to so many studies on every subject that contradict other studies. Not to say their all lies, but they certainly all can't be true. You can usually tell which way their biased by who the group was that did the study. Studies done by neutal entities have the most credibility.
We've already had, "All studies are bunk," and I'm expecting something along the lines of, "Those are isolated cases," in reply to the stories those two kind ladies shared.
Those may have been isolated cases years ago, maybe not now. (which is encouraging, btw).
The growing body of information, both anecdotal and that from study, is showing that in fact such children can look forward to normal, healthy development. Either in spite of or because of the responses of their peers and community.
Again, encouraging. We can only hope this extends to those kids in more backwoods areas as well. Then we will have truly turned the corner.
Pardon my asking, but how long has it been since you witnessed it? I'm guessing not too recently - I know it's been a while for me.
First-hand? A LONG time. Second-hand and in news reports? It's still happening, although the more I read your posts the more I believe it is becoming more and more isolated. Again, we can hope.
I think that the lady in the second story above hit the nail on the head.
Agreed.
What will determine whether or not these children are targeted is how they present themselves to their peers. Since the term is getting a fair bit of use so far; we all know that bullies target those whom they see as weak and vulnerable, shy and withdrawn. How likely is a child raised in a household that fosters love, pride and courage in the face of social adversity to present a timid face to their peers? Not very likely at all, I'd say. And what studies have been done demonstrate that the children of same-sex couples are far more likely to present the kind of thriving individual that a bully is least likely to try to engage.
This is key. Bullies are cowards, and choose their targets based on how easy they are to get away with antagonizing. A kid with lots of friends tends to have people who will stand up for him or her and keep the bullies in line. Whether the kid is being raised by gay parents or straight ones, the skills necessary to interact positively with others go a long way toward reducing the likelihood of them becoming a target. Still, those kids who are shy or withdrawn don't deserve to be bullied any more than the popular kids do. One bully is one too many.
Yes, we can do something. It's called the Dangerous Offender act. Now it's just up to our police and judicial services to make proper use of it.
The police are doing all they can. Our legal system needs to start backing them up.
What I remember of bullies is that they were seldom harshly dealt with b/c of apathy on the part of teachers and principals. That attitude is changing.
Yup, a few Columbines tend to have that effect on teachers and principals.
Attitudes are changing. The world we grew up in isn't the same as we remember it to be. The children of same-sex parents are not going to face psychological annihilation the moment they step out of their homes. They must go with caution and care and with a glad heart. Just like any other child, any other person, should.
Yup. Maybe more gay couples with kids are exactly what this country needs. Not only would it help phase out the intolerant rednecks but it would also deprive the Liberals of yet another topic with which to villify the conservatives and stay in power by default. While we're at it, let's also have more inter-racial marriages so that eventually we are all one mixed race, thus rendering white suppremacists and other zealots obsolete. I'm white and my wife is Korean, so I've already contributed to this goal.
