If getting called gay isn't an insult, why was I banned when I described you as a gay British man?

I've made a point before, and you said something along the lines of me using it as an insult, although I pointed out that that I could have easily meant "British" or "man" to be insults.

Gratz.

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, BElgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, NOrway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.

How do kids in homes where the parents have multiple divorces deal with things?  I believe the idea of gender roles is seen is irrelevant today.  In this discussion, the focus is on people being able to adopt children as the main point.  Not sure anyone cares to think about what is best for the children involved.

And, on this note, I am getting tempted to start a thread on why a rights based ethics system is insufficient for making sound ethical choices.

EDIT: I am disgusted with everything I said in this thread. I used to be an anti-gay right-wing Christian fundamentalist. I am literally the opposite of all of those things and these posts embarrass me.

Is your point that gay couples can't socialize their children in a environment where conventional gender roles are in place? Men and women being in their respective roles, or there being two different roles instead of one?

There's so many problems though, especially if this was going to be legislation.

What are the roles each gender have? Do we make sure hetrosexuals adopt those roles, or do we just assume they'll be carried out? Who decides what the gender roles are?

What about single parents, where only one gender role will be present (one mother, one father). Why not two fathers/mothers?

Why not teach children of responsibilities regardless of gender? Boys should clean up too, girls should aspire to become self sufficient?

Why not accept that sexuality is natural, and that that being so, children will end up straight or homosexual regardless of parentage. Homosexuals developed from hetrosexual couples, why can't hetrosexual couples arise from homosexual?

Awwh it's cute you think all christians are homophobic, I know a lot of pro gay christians.

Why the hell would I want to go out with you and your friends to talk about homophobic BS? I wouldn't , people would just think you're petty to let other people's lives affect you so much when there is no reason too.

"And if you said that, you'd caused a problem in productivity and teamwork by bringing up an issue that was not relevant to the line of work."

No I wouldn't. In fact I have before, I got agreements across the board, you flashing your cross in my face to signalise you're anti gay however, would have you warned/sacked. The law, and most decent people have no tolerance for homophobia, and slandering towards homophobic people is perfectly fine. Because you're the one in the wrong.

one can choose being a sinner, one can't choose being gay.

Me and whoever the mod was, didn't agree. Ambiguity will not save you ...

Also I'm pretty sure you were banned because of the other stuff you said in your post.

I personally would replace the concept of marriage across the board in the legal system with civil unions.  Leave marriage as a religious thing and have the legal paperwork as "civil unions".

As it is now, you can form whatever relationships you like with anyone, sign religious ceremony documents you can choose to uphold.  You can also form legal partnerships with anyone and document how things will be divided if things break up.  The big deal here comes into play, because people who are homosexual want to force employers to give them the same things as married people, and also places as hospitals also.  It is a matter of telling others what they have to do with their own  property.  That is why it is a big deal.  There is also the case of individuals wanting to adopt and wanting to be able to do so.  There is also the belief that somehow having the system legally allow this will then change society and make people then think a marriage is between two adults, and have that become the norm.

Well, you can mock what I wrote.  BUT, if you don't manage to legally define this as civil unions across the board, this is what is going to happen: The next step is marriages consisting of more than two adults.  By arguing marriage is a right everyone has, then individuals who are bisexual will end up saying they have a right to have more than one partner, and remain married to them.  From this will come the concept of legally allowing group marriages, and communal marriages. 

Now, this is where it gets messy.  Employers will then remove benefits for married couples, because it will be too expensive to maintain.   Even homosexual couples won't get the same benefits.  An employer may end up making adjustments to things, but they could also look to do away with it completely.  And insurance companies will possibly look to do the same to. 

And you want to talk about divorce?  Divorce is going to get ugly if left without prenups.  It is possible a civil union solution will come about as a result though, where prenups will be required before a civil union is offered. Of course, child custody would be a mess here to.  Historically, group marriages don't work well at all, eventhough people get interested in doing them.

The point here is it is going to get very messy.

This!!!!!!

I have never met a single gay person that chose to be gay, myself included. I would never choose to be descrimintated. It just happened at birth. I've known since at least age 3 that I was gay. It's no big deal, and yet, I'm still kinda scared, because every single day I see people hating on gays, and I'm afraid I'll be made fun of or beaten up over the way I was born. ugh. ;-;