© the eyeranian

odd, I thought freedom of thought works exaclty like a buffet and I can choose to believe what I want. In the issues you mentioned I would most certainly limit womens right to abort pregnancy. Being a proud father I remember how my daughter's personality started to show already in the womb. I also remember seeing her already in the first trimester of pregnancy and she had distincvtly human features. While as a lawyer I see why the legal definition of human requires a live birth, as a human I don't think this should be the moral definition of human. I think abortion should be mostly limited to medical and extreme conditions (i.e. rape) and it definitely should not be considered as just another method of birth control. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant - the simplest of which is abstaining from intercourse, but even those who do not want to do that can reliably prevent pregnancy.

Perhaps I overreact because in my country there are about the same number of abortions as there are births and I think this is terribly wrong. During the soviet occupation there were actually twice the amount of abortions to the number of births.

Well now you know you were wrong. Thanks to eyeranian.

Giving same sex couples equal rights, means they should also have the right to have children of their own, and while that might seem cute at first sight, just imagine the psychological blows their children will suffer. Think of a school play where some little kid has come with his/her gay/lesbian parents and finds him/herself subject of other student's talks and giggles! The older they get, the more questions pop up in their heads without answers!!!
Parenthood rights for same sex marriages means delibrately preventing a human being from the right of having both male and female parents. That cannot be justified...

I respect your concern for children of same sex couples, and that's why it would be your responsibility and that of all of us to not allow such children or anyone for that matter to be the subject of such torment. I know we don't live in anything remotely close to a perfect world where teasing and prejudice and discrimination would never happen, but every step in that directions helps.

Imagine in a few years when being the child of any parent is nothing to be ashamed of since all those kids grew up and based on their experiences growing up and what they had seen in the society and school, start respecting all individuals equally, regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation. Sounds like a pretty justified goal to me.

Deny people their rights because a kid may be made fun of at school? You've got to be kidding Sinsher.

What "questions" may "pop up" in their head??? I think it's your own head that needs to be popped open. Get over your blind prejudices and don't try to wrap your bigotery in a nice "concern for the kids" lie. That is just a lie my friend.

We (Iranians),not Iranian expats, have a long way to go before openly discussing homosexuallity in an open society. I do however agree with Pedram's premis that "freedom" praticed in its ideal form must embrace individual choice without strings attached.

you paint a black and white picture that's just not true. While unions have their place look at what they have done the car or airline industry in the states. Look at what unions did to the British govt before Thatcher faced them down. Equal rights for same sex marriages ? How will that work for tax purposes ? Do two married guys really deserve the same tax credits as a "regular" couple ?
You can't just draw lines that everyone is entitled to everything and anyone else who disagrees must be a hypocrit.

to my anonymous friend!

"a kid may be made fun of at school"!!! This is no simple thing. I should perhaps refer you to the biography of Jeffrey Dahmer, so you understand what an important role childhood mentalities play in one's life, and how dramatic the consequences could be.

About denying people their rights, who decides what rights we have? you? Our rights are those not in conflict with other human beings' interests and not immoral. You have the right to live the way you want as long as the consequences of your actions don't put another being in disadvantage. That "a kid" you are refering to is a human being, just as you were a small kid once. A two year old
doesn't have the mentality to argue with the parents his/her future, kids learn what they're taught, see the world as it's been shown to them.
And if they grow up and argue they were treated the way they have never had wanted, had they seen the big picture, then what? Your reasoning is like that of a parent who argues the children won't let him go to a parent's meeting in underwear just because they don't want to be made fun of!

Friend, what lie? Why would I need to lie about a thing like this? It's not like recognizing same sex marriage means banning opposite sex unions! I as an individual am not loosing anything either way!

Sounds like black and white thinking to me! :( And being against abortion contradicts women's rights? That's more of a matter of conflicting rights--the rights of a woman vs. the rights of an unborn. That illustrates why it's not that simple, because everyone's rights conflict and contradict each other; a thinking person has to decide where to draw the line.

As if thinking black or white is bad? Get over the "grey" thinking you were sold. The world is indeed Black & White.

On this one, I'm with my friend Pedram.

One guy thinks kids will turn to Jeff Dahmers if they have Gay parents, perhaps not thinking Jeff's parents were "straight".

The other one asks "Do two married guys really deserve the same tax credits as a "regular" couple ? ", OF COURSE THEY DO! Why not???

And the last one is so far in the right, the "rights of the unborn" is still an issue for her/him.

Get over it people!

With all the conservative sites and blogs, I fail to see why such thinking needs to come and expose itself in such a liberal environment. But I admit it is fun to watch them speak as if we are in the 1950's.

Visitor,
Makes me wonder what planet we are on when a far left liberal tells me, a conservative, to "get over" my "grey thinking".

And Naser, these things are not settled matters at all. I bet you say that because you haven't thought any of this thru. And it's not just about "rights of the unborn" either. Like you wouldn't have a problem if some woman exercised her "right" to abort your baby?

this is a sad level of argument. If you can't argue anything more worthwhile than "get over it" don't bother.
"OF COURSE THEY DO! Why not???" Why not ? That's your answer ? Cause the male population in general makes more than the female population. I mean did you even think before you typed ? or were you so impressed by the caps lock key that you forgot to actually present a point of view ?
" I fail to see why such thinking needs to come and expose itself in such a liberal environment." In the future I suggest you go inside a room look at the mirror and just talk to yourself I mean that way you'll never hear a differing opinion.

As an iranian gay i can say that iranian friends accepted me with more tolerance than others. Maybe i'm surrounded by very tolerant iranians. Even in my family everybody knows and nobodody change his attitude toward me.
Second point: for equal right. I think to accept us how we are is a big step, i don't want the same right than straight just have place in Iran where we can hang with each other without being attacked by people.

I have to agree with pp. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." There are good scientific as well as religious reasons to hold the position that a fetus has a life of its own. To say that because women have, or should have, equal rights is not to grant them a "right" to take an innocent life is indeed a foolish consistency.

As for Naser, I have to quote Milton, "I cannot trust a fugitive and a cloistered virtue." If he is not willing to expose his liberal opinions to conservatives intelligent enough to debate them, how strong can they be? Besides, debating those who disagree with you can be a lot of fun.

As for gay marriage (an oxymoron in my view), to say that it will turn kids into Jeffrey Dahmer is a bit silly. Still, this culture doesn't take marriage seriously enough as it is. Why compound that by legalizing what most people in this country would consider a grotesque J. Fred Muggs parody of marriage?

Those of us who are married sometimes wonder if those of you who are not really know what they are asking for when they suggest the M word as a solution for anything!

Marraige is a fine institution, if you want to live in an institution.

On a more serious note:

I believe God created each one of us in his image, to be his expression. Our job is to continually see ways to better be that image than we are doing at the moment, since none of us lives up to our full potential as God's child.

I believe that this applies to all, leftists, conservatives, Canadians, Gay and straight, etc.

I also believe that a person's sexuality is a private matter, and should not ever be something that can be used to discriminate against them.

If a person choose to become a lifetime partner with someone of their own sex, I see no reason why that partnership should not have the same benefits as marraige between a man and a woman.

Perhaps it ought to be called a civil union or domestic partnership, or perhaps we should all just relax and call it a marraige, but in any event, the legal rights should be the same.