Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Djanki on May 01, 2007, 07:48:11 PM
-
Yar, ya'll don't know 'bout the Civil Rights fiasco in Puerto Rico.
Apparently, they're trying to pass a few laws in favor of the homosexual community in Puerto Rico (like letting them adopt kids). But some unseen, unknown (*ahem*--the religious) people are being brats about it.
I don't see the big deal, and you guys won't either, but keep in mind that this is Latin America--religion is uber-big over here. But I think this is pathetic. Let the gays have kids! What if your own son/daughters were gay? You'd hate them? That's just heartless.
I don't care if even they--the gays--think the Wii is gay (<_< >_>), I think it's about time they got their rights.
-
Yeah... this seems to be a hot topic all over the place
Im pretty pro gay rights.
A good parent is a good parent.
-
Im going to be honest on this subject, while I do think its ok for them to get kids so they can not only feel the responsiblity as being a parent in a normal relationship, they also provide homes to the children that were orphaned.
However, I am not in support of gays from being officially married. Maybe its the Redneck in me, but I dunno. Its not right.
-
Thats ridiculous. You cant honestly Support gays parenting, and Not support them from marrying. Thats like Saying "I support Vegetarianism, as Long as they dont eat vegetables." It would, in many governments be an impediment to not have the childrens adoptive parents married. Thats one of the silliest contradictions Ive heard.
Besides, If they pay taxes, what intrest is it to anyone else? If you are a Functional member of society, what business is it of anyone elses?
-
Originally posted by gemini
Thats ridiculous. You cant honestly Support gays parenting, and Not support them from marrying. Thats like Saying "I support Vegetarianism, as Long as they dont eat vegetables." It would, in many governments be an impediment to not have the childrens adoptive parents married. Thats one of the silliest contradictions Ive heard.
Besides, If they pay taxes, what intrest is it to anyone else? If you are a Functional member of society, what business is it of anyone elses?
What I said makes perfect sense really. There are plenty of parents out there who arent married. And Marriage is a vow between a man and woman, not man and man. God made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
-
OH THATS RIGHT! IT WAS EVE, NOT STEVE. SRRY.
nope. So the gay couple can ADOPT a child, but they cant SET AN EXAMPLE OF A STRUCTRED FAMILY LIFE IN A LEGALLY CORRECT ENVIRONS.
Whatever, man. Im going to rape you in the butt.
edit:
And yeah, there are plenty of non married families. And a great majority of them are disfuntional.
In alot of places you HAVE TO BE MARRIED to adopt.
So youre all for handing out Drivers liscences and forbidding Cars then....
-
Ok man, dont take this out of hand, k?
All Im saying is that in my opinion its ok for them to be parents to children, but not legally be spouses. If you dont like what Im saying, dont listen to me then.
-
Originally posted by MSlash67
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
lets take this to unmod, hillbilly.
-
You weren't there when it happened.
-
The problem with gay marriage is marriage is a religious thing, even though most people get married just to be married and for love and all that, not so much because of religion and all that anymore. Which puts gay people in a tight spot. I don't think it's right they're being denied marriage just because they're homosexual but then again, it's not my religion, so who am I to tell the catholics and christians how to operate it? Even though it's obvious anti-gay marriage protests are fueled by hate and masked by 'what the bible says'.
-
If Djanki is down for a move to unmod, Ill gladly relocate it.But its here. And as such, it stays.
Mslash, Im not taking it out of hand. Its a debate man. I happend to have strong feelings on the Subject. If you cant hadle having your argument shredded, dont post adam and steve crap.
That, and, well.....Im gay. And Im going to rape your butt.
EDIT: Dren, I agree with your statement about marrage being a religous thing.
Sure, A "christian' marrage could be ruled out. But Marrage is also a LEGAL entity.
And Denying a legal marrage to somebody because of sexual orientation, is denying them legal rights and responsibilities. Aside from goldigging anna-nicoles, there are actual reasons nuptual laws exist. Mostly for Financial Security, and things like that. So to deny a legal marrage to a gay person is to deny them legal rights.
And that, has NOTHING to do with religon.
-
Originally posted by drenrin2120
The problem with gay marriage is marriage is a religious thing, even though most people get married just to be married and for love and all that, not so much because of religion and all that anymore. Which puts gay people in a tight spot. I don't think it's right they're being denied marriage just because they're homosexual but then again, it's not my religion, so who am I to tell the catholics and christians how to operate it? Even though it's obvious anti-gay marriage protests are fueled by hate and masked by 'what the bible says'.
iit was a strictly religious thing, but now its become a government institution. because of the "separation of church and state," you can not use christian principles as a means of excluding others from a governmental privilige.
-
Remember, I have a Lesbian aunt (who unfortunately is raising her daughter by herself. The actual mother/carrier kind of left. I never liked her anyway.) I love her to death, I see her all the time, and chances are she'll take me in if anything happens to my parents. I think my dad made her my godmother or something.
I think they should be allowed to get married. The problem to me comes from when you're denying a male/female influence in the family for sex. With her, she tries to expose her daughter to a male influence as much as possible. My dad loves his sister and he does help raise the daughter.
Originally posted by charaman
Originally posted by drenrin2120
The problem with gay marriage is marriage is a religious thing, even though most people get married just to be married and for love and all that, not so much because of religion and all that anymore. Which puts gay people in a tight spot. I don't think it's right they're being denied marriage just because they're homosexual but then again, it's not my religion, so who am I to tell the catholics and christians how to operate it? Even though it's obvious anti-gay marriage protests are fueled by hate and masked by 'what the bible says'.
iit was a strictly religious thing, but now its become a government institution. because of the "separation of church and state," you can not use christian principles as a means of excluding others from a governmental privilige.
I'm kinda iffy on this part. Marriage did exist before Christianity. At least I think it did, and in other parts of the world. But (coming from a Christian himself) Christians rule the world. In fact, I've only really met one aethiest in real life other than people on the internet. I've got some Muslim, Buddist, and Hindu friends but that's about it.
And by the way, I don't exactly know how my aunt managed claim, but she is the legal guardian of the girl. I might ask about it later.
-
I thought it might have been seperated but I wasn't sure, so I stated what I knew for sure was true. The fact remains the only reason to deny them marriage is hate and/or religious beliefs. Now that I know that it HAS been seperated from the church and people can be married through the state it only makes it worse for those who want to deny gay peoples' marriage rights.
-
You're totally proving yourself to be a serious, passionate person debating the topic by telling him you're going to rape him in the butt.
Marriage become a legal matter instead of a religious matter the moment benefits were given to spouses. The problem here is exclusion in the public arena - if the Catholic church won't marry a gay couple, that is perfectly fine for the Catholic church. But when they deny them the ability to marry legally, that is public segregation. It's similar to telling a black person they cannot own property because they are black - not so long ago it was thought that they were inferior, just as now it's thought that gay people are unnatural.
Your personal feelings of whether gay people are wrong or not are your own feelings, and no one has the right to tell you that you can't have that opinion. However, at the same time, you do not have the right to impose your opinion over someone else in a way that denies them something like legal marriage. Unless religion is publicly accepted as a factor of government, an acknowledged as such, it amounts to hypocrisy.
Let them be married. Let them have kids. Hate them all you want, but let them have the rights that every human being deserves, otherwise you're just another intolerant Christian using religion as a weapon against others.
By the way, I was raised Catholic and never did I read or hear anything in the Bible that said, "Gay people are wrong." I'm still wondering where people get that idea. It's like saying that it's wrong to eat sandwiches because originally humans didn't eat them.
-
Unfortunately the seperation between church and state is and has always been a farce. I'm Christian and it annoys me how much the government claims to be Christian when they're acting the way they are. I get my life lessons from the Bible and from peers and mentors, not from a whack oid tychoon puppet that's pretending to be the leader of the free world, thank you very much.
And yes, yes, I know "remove the plank from your own eye before helping your neighbor with the splinter in his." I shouldn't be judging. But I do worry for the future of this country.
... what were we talking about again? Oh, right. Gay rights.
I'm a Christian and I'm not gay, so this is sort of unfamilar ground for me to take a firm stance on. It seems though that homosexuality is something you're born with, sort of like being born with brown hair. I refuse to believe that God would create an inherently sinful person. We all sin, yes, but from our own free will; we are all given a clean slate and we choose to muck it up. But if homosexuality is a sin, those people never even got their chance. They were born evil. That seems highly wrong to me and very nonconformist with the rest of what I know about Christian teachings.
-
Butt rape makes everything more serious, Osmose.
-
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
I'm kinda iffy on this part. Marriage did exist before Christianity. At least I think it did, and in other parts of the world. But (coming from a Christian himself) Christians rule the world. In fact, I've only really met one aethiest in real life other than people on the internet. I've got some Muslim, Buddist, and Hindu friends but that's about it.
Marriage did exist before Christianity, but so did religion. It was (almost) always in a religious context back then.
Unfortunately the seperation between church and state is and has always been a farce. I'm Christian and it annoys me how much the government claims to be Christian when they're acting the way they are. I get my life lessons from the Bible and from peers and mentors, not from a whack oid tychoon puppet that's pretending to be the leader of the free world, thank you very much.
Sai, you're the kind of Christian I like.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
it's thought that gay people are unnatural.
You know, that statement has always bothered me, considering there are many documented cases of homosexuality in animals.
Seriously, what's more natural than animals? And yet there's gay in there.
-
I agree with both Sai and Osmose.
By the way, I was raised Catholic and never did I read or hear anything in the Bible that said, "Gay people are wrong." I'm still wondering where people get that idea. It's like saying that it's wrong to eat sandwiches because originally humans didn't eat them.
I'm guessing it was some religious extremist interpretting some obscure passage from the bible and everyone else was like, "Uh... oh yes, why here it is!" and they went along with it.
-
Originally posted by SaiKar
Unfortunately the seperation between church and state is and has always been a farce. I'm Christian and it annoys me how much the government claims to be Christian when they're acting the way they are. I get my life lessons from the Bible and from peers and mentors, not from a whack oid tychoon puppet that's pretending to be the leader of the free world, thank you very much.
One I hope you mean oil instead of oid. :p
You're doing the right thing. When was the last time Jesus voted for an American President?
From what I know, the Law of the Levites, Sodom and Ghemorrah, and Romans condone homosexuality but even so they're a stretch. The Laws were about cleanliness (As in actual dirt and disease). Sodom and Ghemorrah for some reason is about homosexuality. I don't get why. There was this passage about the townsmembers surrounding and burning down an inn if these two guys don't come out. The passage had them screaming "so that we may know them" and know is supposed to mean sex. For some reason it isn't "to lie with" which is what is in the rest of the Bible. I think Romans had a party scene and some guy was disgusted.
I remember Shady Ultima posting more verses but I couldn't find them in my bible. meh
-
Originally posted by Razor
And yet there's gay in there.
Exactly. How many times have you seen a boy dog hump the living crap out of another boy dog? Also, A boy dog humping a Cat? "Natural' is some of the most lewd stuff out there.
Theres gay in everywhere if you look hard enough.
-
One thing I've never fully understood about the loud Christians (who are often Catholic) who are against homosexual marriage or abortion.
I mean, it's not like they will be forced to marry someone of the same sex if homosexual marriage is allowed, just like they can still have babies. It is purely them imposing their opinons and beliefs upon [/B]others[/B]. That, my friends, makes absolutely no sense. It's as if nobody was allowed to eat rice, becase a group of people happen to hate the stuff.
Now, on to the Bible. I've recently started to read the thing, and the darn thing seems to have already contradicted itself. In Genesis 1, it appears to say that God created animals, then he created man. In Genesis 2, it says that He created man, then he created animals. A little more on topic, the Bible apparantly says homosexuality is bad with the following verse thingy.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
One, men cannot lie with men as they do women, men don't have vaginas. Two, notice the word also, I may be getting a bit technical, but that may mean that this passage is about bisexual males. Three, the Leviticus being applied to modern day society is just silly. It supports slavery, is against the menstrual cycle, forbids eating shrimp as well as wearing clothes of more than one type of fabric. And four, though I haven't gotten this far, but doesn't Jesus tell all the good little Christians to ignore those rules and such, that they only need believe in him?
Anyways, Canada wins here, as the gays and the lesbians can marry.
EDIT: So does the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa.
-
I did a whole Speech topic over this. You may guess that I worked on the pro part of this.
-
The bibles contradicts itself because of thousands of years of translations, interpretation, and man's tampering. I'm gonna stop there, because every time I get into these kinda of debates I always get proven wrong about things, not because I'm stupid, just 'cuz I don't reasearch **** like I should.
-
I totally like butts, and think I should be able to marry whoever I want.
-
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
-Richard Dawkins
-
Sounds like my penis.
-
Originally posted by Meiscool
Sounds like my penis.
**** off
-
Originally posted by MSlash67
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
XD I didn't really think that anyone has ever said this and meant it.
a lot of straight people shouldn't be married or have kids, so... go gay rights. yay.
I just wonder if a child would be gay, being raised by gay parents, and if so is it right?
There's definitely no deficit on people now a days, so I don't really care about procreation. And there's plenty of orphans that it would benefit.
Also a lot of disabled people are coming about. Maybe just in my area, but it seems odd that there are so many.
-
I have buddies with gay parents that arent gay. Well, A buddie.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
By the way, I was raised Catholic and never did I read or hear anything in the Bible that said, "Gay people are wrong." I'm still wondering where people get that idea. It's like saying that it's wrong to eat sandwiches because originally humans didn't eat them.
I think it was around Sodom and Gomorrah, but I'm sure it refers more to raping than to homosexualism.
Besides, it's a piece of paper. A holy piece of paper? Made by God himself?! No, just a common piece of paper, made most likely by a library, after years of years of editing to suit the opinions of men who liked to play God.
But this is not about the bible, it's about our opinions about gay marriage and such.
So, in my opinion, gay people should be able to get married.
That's it. Questions? Doubts? Send them all to thisisnotafakeadress@Charas-project.lol
-
Originally posted by charaman
Originally posted by Meiscool
Sounds like my penis.
**** off[/B]
Excuse me for not being sensitive to the needs of butt****ers.
The way I see it is: Marriage was originally proposed by religion, so religion should be able to controll what happens with it. However, because of the state benefits that come with this religious act, there is dispute. Hence, instead of getting married, they should be given the rights that married people have and be given the title: Butt Buddies.
Everyone wins.
-
Originally posted by MSlash67
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
Because starting off an entire species is done most efficiently with a couple that cannot reproduce. Good one.
-
Originally posted by MSlash67
God made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
God made Steve, too. Or are you suggesting that Steve is a Hellspawn?
Because I have a brother with that name, and I'm sure he wouldn't like you calling him Satanic. _veryangry_
Oh, and Eve is a clone. This Adam guy's making it with himself. The Bible now says it's ok to jack it off, have inter-family relations, and clone humans, but apparently, gay marriage is totally out.
Nice try, bologna-face.
-
Originally posted by gemini
I have buddies with gay parents that arent gay. Well, A buddie.
I guess that part doesn't matter, and I know there's not heterophobic homosexuals who'd brainwash children, so I'd say it's all good.
-
As long as their not lesbian feminists or someone like Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O'Donnell its all good. Its really more extreme lesbians I dislike more than gay guys.
-
I pretty much hate a$$holes.
There is nothing less interesting to me than how somebody else acheives orgasm.
Wether youre a lesbian, A Gay Man, A Hetro Feminist, a Redneck buttmonger...
A jerk is a jerk.
That being said...
An awesome dude is an awesome dude.
-
Originally posted by Meiscool
Originally posted by charaman
Originally posted by Meiscool
Sounds like my penis.
**** off[/B]
Excuse me for not being sensitive to the needs of buttfuckers.
The way I see it is: Marriage was originally proposed by religion, so religion should be able to controll what happens with it. However, because of the state benefits that come with this religious act, there is dispute. Hence, instead of getting married, they should be given the rights that married people have and be given the title: Butt Buddies.
Everyone wins.[/B]
Religion should NOT be control of lives. People should be able to live their lives the way they want to, and not force it upon others, eg the gays.
So what, religion made marriage? It also proposes a whole lot of outdated things that we, a civilized modern society would not support. The not allowing of gays should also be outdated.
And one more thing, you can't call lesbians Butt Buddies. That's a stupid title in general.
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
One, men cannot lie with men as they do women, men don't have vaginas. Two, notice the word also, I may be getting a bit technical, but that may mean that this passage is about bisexual males. Three, the Leviticus being applied to modern day society is just silly. It supports slavery, is against the menstrual cycle, forbids eating shrimp as well as wearing clothes of more than one type of fabric. And four, though I haven't gotten this far, but doesn't Jesus tell all the good little Christians to ignore those rules and such, that they only need believe in him?
I was going to post that same thing, albeit without the actual place in the bible, because I'm not willing to re-read that damn book.
Now, I support gay rights fully, even if I personally do not agree with the lifestyle. Whether or not they're gay, they ARE a person, and every human should have the right to marry the person they love.
Originally posted by gemini
An awesome dude is an awesome dude.
Hey man, thanks :D
-
Hum. I'm seriously confused, as, out of curiosity since I sure as hell don't read the Bible anymore (out of laziness, really - religion requires effort that I don't have), I checked in the old Bible we used when I was younger, and couldn't find the book of Leviticus.
Maybe my church decided to cut out the bad parts? :P
-
Originally posted by Shady Ultima
Now, I support gay rights fully, even if I personally do not agree with the lifestyle. Whether or not they're gay, they ARE a person, and every human should have the right to marry the person they love.
What is the homosexual person's lifestyle? No please, tell me. How do every homosexual man and woman live?
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Originally posted by Shady Ultima
Now, I support gay rights fully, even if I personally do not agree with the lifestyle. Whether or not they're gay, they ARE a person, and every human should have the right to marry the person they love.
What is the homosexual person's lifestyle? No please, tell me. How do every homosexual man and woman live?[/B]
Well, not that different from other people's lifestyle.
Japan has no problem with homosexualism--so long as the people in question are professional about it (get married, pay taxes, have jobs), it's okay. But the Japanese aren't really christian, so go figure...
All I can say is this: I don't know any gays. But I was treated like one in middle school, and that was hell on earth. It's not fair to segregate people like this. Hating guys who like other guys is like hating guys who like blondes. It's all a matter of preference. So what if they're more...'peppy'. They don't hurt anyone. They're also humans. They deserve to be treated as such.
-
Originally Posted by Osmose
Hum. I'm seriously confused, as, out of curiosity since I sure as hell don't read the Bible anymore (out of laziness, really - religion requires effort that I don't have), I checked in the old Bible we used when I was younger, and couldn't find the book of Leviticus.
Maybe my church decided to cut out the bad parts? :P
WTF?
(And I'm not saying that to be mean or anything. My best friend is Catholic and stuff.)
-
DOWN WITH RELIGION!!!!!!
*cough* I'm trying to be subtle here... >.>
EDIT: Seriously, religion isn't bad, it's the extremist that use it to gain power over others that are bad.
-
http://www.atomfilms.com/film/jesus_off.jsp?channelKeyword=channel_religious_heresy
-
Part of that URL is "Jesus off"
and that would be THE best catchphrase for Jesus to use when he is leaving.
"Well guys, it was fun turnin' water to wine, but I gotta dash. Jesus OFF!" *runs away*
-
Originally posted by aboutasoandthis
Originally Posted by Osmose
Hum. I'm seriously confused, as, out of curiosity since I sure as hell don't read the Bible anymore (out of laziness, really - religion requires effort that I don't have), I checked in the old Bible we used when I was younger, and couldn't find the book of Leviticus.
Maybe my church decided to cut out the bad parts? :P
WTF?
(And I'm not saying that to be mean or anything. My best friend is Catholic and stuff.)[/B]
I'm just as confused as you are, but it's probably just this specific edition. The Bible's been published by basically everyone, so there's bound to be differences even if two Bibles claim to be Roman Catholic.
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Originally posted by Shady Ultima
Now, I support gay rights fully, even if I personally do not agree with the lifestyle. Whether or not they're gay, they ARE a person, and every human should have the right to marry the person they love.
What is the homosexual person's lifestyle? No please, tell me. How do every homosexual man and woman live?[/B]
You know what I mean. Sexual preference is a lifestyle, because it effects your everyday life. I don't mean that they're different from everyone else, because they're not, they're the same.
-
Osmose said it right about marriage. Rights should be general, destined to every single citizen. Therefore, prohibition would be segregation.
But adopting kids isn`t right. The psiquic development of a kid depends 50% of the presence of the mother figure. Not just that, but also the social development.
And a gay man ain`t no woman. He`s a man that likes men. Period. He can`t fill the blank space that would be left in the kids personality. Your mom can`t have a dick. Can`t be hairy. Can`t speak in a grave tone. It`s gotta be the gentle presence, the warm chest, the sweet voice.
This kid will ask why he`s got to dads. He won`t understand the reason of the "key and keyhole" reproduction. He won`t grow in order to fulfill the species only rightful destination: reproduction.
That`s pretty much why our world is doomed: the human being is disposing itself from every little remain of instinct. He`s becoming a unfamiliar presence to nature. We are coming to the point that we can`t be considered "organic" anymore.
-
A father Figure or mother figure dosent neccesarily have to be ****ing the other parent.
The African communities that adhere to the whole "It takes a village to raise a child" thing have it pretty dead on. If the Gay couple is a straight bashing fag fest, chances are they wont be eligible to adopt a child
Gay trying to adopt generally know the importance of this. And if their qualified for adoption, then there is obviously structure there. There are aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, Family friends, teachers. Just because A kid has two dads it does not mean that they will be watching gay porn and wondering what a lady is.
That was a little bit ignorant. Using your logic, single parents should have their children taken away. And thats stupid.
-
Originally posted by Shady Ultima
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Originally posted by Shady Ultima
Now, I support gay rights fully, even if I personally do not agree with the lifestyle. Whether or not they're gay, they ARE a person, and every human should have the right to marry the person they love.
What is the homosexual person's lifestyle? No please, tell me. How do every homosexual man and woman live?[/B]
You know what I mean. Sexual preference is a lifestyle, because it effects your everyday life. I don't mean that they're different from everyone else, because they're not, they're the same. [/B]
Nobody is the same. Nobody has the same lifestyle as anyone else. Regardless of sexuality, regardless of gender, age, country, your lifestyle will not be the same as someone else's. A group of people, one who are sexually attracted to their own gender, will not share one lifestyle.
Even if every gay man gets a funny feeling in their pants when they say a good-looking man, that doesn't mean that they live the same way as every other gay man.
-
Originally posted by gemini
A father Figure or mother figure dosent neccesarily have to be ******* the other parent.
The African communities that adhere to the whole "It takes a village to raise a child" thing have it pretty dead on. If the Gay couple is a straight bashing *** fest, chances are they wont be eligible to adopt a child
Gay trying to adopt generally know the importance of this. And if their qualified for adoption, then there is obviously structure there. There are aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, Family friends, teachers. Just because A kid has two dads it does not mean that they will be watching gay porn and wondering what a lady is.
That was a little bit ignorant. Using your logic, single parents should have their children taken away. And thats stupid.
::)
-
Gemini covered your post well, 'cept for this part.
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
He won`t grow in order to fulfill the species only rightful destination: reproduction.
Please prove that reproduction is the species' only rightful destination.
Furthermore, please provide reasons why homosexual couples cannot have biological children. There are ways that they can raise kids that are not adopted, such as this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization)
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Gemini covered your post well, 'cept for this part.
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
He won`t grow in order to fulfill the species only rightful destination: reproduction.
Please prove that reproduction is the species' only rightful destination.
Furthermore, please provide reasons why homosexual couples cannot have biological children. There are ways that they can raise kids that are not adopted, such as this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization)[/B]
One word: lemmings.
-
Gemini is one smart fuckin' dude.
Half the people I know only talk to one of their parents, and they're happier than kids that live with constantly fighting parents. If there's love, the kid will grow up fine. I don't believe that just because a child grows up with gay parents that they are more likely to grow up and be gay as well. Especially when people use the argument that homosexuality is a natural, predetermined thing in the genes.
-
What Gemini said. Especially that part about being raised by a single parent.
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Gemini covered your post well, 'cept for this part.
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
He won`t grow in order to fulfill the species only rightful destination: reproduction.
Please prove that reproduction is the species' only rightful destination.[/URL][/B]
It may not be proof, heck, it may not be all that relevant, but
while mankind has often pondered "what is the meaning of life?" every (and correct me if I'm wrong here) other animal does one thing in common, and that is to ensure that they bear life and generally pass their genetic information forwards into the future. That is to say, they all have sex. And eat. But eating is precursor to sex. Because you need to be alive before you have sex, unless she's into the necro-scene.
But that won't create children, so you might want to disregard that.
You know what I mean?
But yeah, generally a lot of people agree that on at least an instinctual basis the main goal is reproduction. On a moral or ethical or spiritual basis, which is primarily a human thing, it's something gay like "live your life to the fullest" etc.
Is this even relevant anymore? You tell me.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
This kid will ask why he`s got to dads. He won`t understand the reason of the "key and keyhole" reproduction. He won`t grow in order to fulfill the species only rightful destination: reproduction.
...you know, only because a gay couple adopted a kid, it does not mean they won't teach him about sex. Seriously.
I mean c'mon, your other argument is that the kid needs a motherly figure, okay, so we should take away kids whose mothers died giving birth, and put them in an unknow family? Gimme a break man.
As for instinc, man, instinc is what makes us kill when surrounded. All the human history is how about we are trying to make ourselves think instead of using our instincts.
-
Why are you lot so desperate to live how we were intented to live anyway? Animal nature is to reprodce and then die. Why do we need to follow the same course?
We only get one chance at life. Maybe you believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation, but let's be honest, that's a huge risk to take. If you waste away this life trying to do what's required of you by nature then you're wasting your one shot.
A better idea is to enjoy life as much as you possibly can without affecting others. That is, unfortunately, the opposite of some religious philosophies (Follow a set of rules whether you like them or not, and try to make everyone else follow them too).
If you want to do guys and then take drugs and then commit suicide, and you've decided that that's the best course of action for you, then do it, because if you have one thing, it should be the ability to choose how you spend your short, short time in existance.
-
Having NO motherly figure is different from having two dads or a strange mother figure.
THis isn't all about love. Society is out there numbnuts, kids will point comment. Other parents will feel prejudice. Kid'll need psichological assistance! Y'all saying itīs cool to be raised by two men cause you never put yourself in the place. Itīs easy to say it would be easy when you never knocked the wood yourself.
Daetyrnis: Well, I see why you say that reproduction is not the main destination of any species: because you saw in Discovery Channel that Lions wake up everyday at 5 a.m. to work on the Volkswagen industries cause he's saving money to buy A NEW SET OF GOLF CLUBS! No. He fights to survive and to procriate. The famale selects the best male to have the best offspring! Human beings changed the purpose, and that's why, today, we have weak, sick people, mutilated, deformed people. The thinking hability is what drove the humanity away from the development of the species. We, for what we became, are going down, not up.
And I say itīs impossible to have biological kids because I spent the whole day searching for mu uterus and have yet to find it! Biological kids is a term I used to designate the natural conception of a person: the sex relation between a man and a woman, that permits the crossing over of genetic material and the veriety of humankind.
I really can understand why people wonīt see a "right" order of things anymore. Ideology changes us so much that we belive that right is whatever we determine to be right. So, there is a male and a female. Itīs not wrong for males to feel attraction for other males (same for fems), absolutely. But in procriation, there is absolutely no compatibility in men-men reproduction, and, therefore, men-men child raising.
Nature made things one way. Used to be right. We changed it. Itīs not right anymore. What does this mean?
MANKIND > NATURE. Is this right?
-
Yes it is. Because we are mankind, not nature, and we have to live for ourselves or render existance pointless.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Having NO motherly figure is different from having two dads or a strange mother figure.
THis isn't all about love. Society is out there numbnuts, kids will point comment. Other parents will feel prejudice. Kid'll need psichological assistance! Y'all saying itīs cool to be raised by two men cause you never put yourself in the place. Itīs easy to say it would be easy when you never knocked the wood yourself.
Daetyrnis: Well, I see why you say that reproduction is not the main destination of any species: because you saw in Discovery Channel that Lions wake up everyday at 5 a.m. to work on the Volkswagen industries cause he's saving money to buy A NEW SET OF GOLF CLUBS! No. He fights to survive and to procriate. The famale selects the best male to have the best offspring! Human beings changed the purpose, and that's why, today, we have weak, sick people, mutilated, deformed people. The thinking hability is what drove the humanity away from the development of the species. We, for what we became, are going down, not up.
And I say itīs impossible to have biological kids because I spent the whole day searching for mu uterus and have yet to find it! Biological kids is a term I used to designate the natural conception of a person: the sex relation between a man and a woman, that permits the crossing over of genetic material and the veriety of humankind.
I really can understand why people wonīt see a "right" order of things anymore. Ideology changes us so much that we belive that right is whatever we determine to be right. So, there is a male and a female. Itīs not wrong for males to feel attraction for other males (same for fems), absolutely. But in procriation, there is absolutely no compatibility in men-men reproduction, and, therefore, men-men child raising.
Nature made things one way. Used to be right. We changed it. Itīs not right anymore. What does this mean?
MANKIND > NATURE. Is this right?
You know, In the early days of man...Man was not aware that having sex created babies. Dogs are not aware of it either. Because of low IQ. Sexual Health and a basic knowledge of anatomy come with knowledge. I had a male health teacher. He had no uterus. My mother was single. I guess I should not know how to use my penis.
Blowing a wad is instinct. It dont matter how you blow it. If youre a guy, you could grow up around NO OTHER CREATURE and still know that blowing a wad is fun. Because this is basic, non verbal instinct. Its not learned knowledge.
My mother was a prostitute, And I have yet to have sex for money. Or have Children for profit.Sexual Health, good hygene, and the concept of reproduction are LEARNED things. You know when little kids ask where babies come from? This is how they learn. NO GAY PARENT is going to tell the child "When I have anal sex with my same gender partner, it makes babies."
If ANYTHING a gay parent would try to be extra attentive to the situation.
Your agrument is based on bigoted logic man.Having gay parents does NOT breed gay kids. You show me documentation that it does, (that is not produced by a right wing religous sect) and Ill indulge it. But I have a pretty good understanding of developmental psycology. And you were beatwith a dumb stick by the sounds of it.
EDIT: Youre right, its not about love. Its about giving a child that needs a home to grow up in, a finacially stable, non-abusive life. Im not saying that ALL GAY PEOPLE SHOULD GET FREE KIDS...
In the Fourties and Fifties and early sixties, Black people were pointed at and laughed at. That was by no means grounds for family denial. They werent denied this.
And its not about the parents rights either. Its the Childs rights. And if a Gay couple is going to adopt, the onus is on them to raise that child in a safe envrions. ie not living in redneck USA, not living in inner city ghettos....not smoking crack, and not having sex in front of their kids.
-
Wow, almeidaboo, you surprise me there. :|
Gemini pretty much said it all.
-
If a man wants to shove a big ol' dick in his mouth with a ring on his finger, I say let em be. No harm can be done.
If they wanna get a kid, good for them. I see no problem. Kids can have 2 fathers and still lead a normal life. I dont understand that fascination with it. And I dont like how alm says a child ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE RAISED W/O BOTH SEXES. There are plenty fo single mothers and fathers out there. With one more of the same sex, itd be even better seeing as its not easy supporting a kid on your own. So you're saying man on man children raising is wrong because the kid'll get made fun of? More kids get made fun of for being fat. They survive. Kids are dicks and WHATEVER you do, you will be laughed at.
Also, **** nature. Its not even like 2 guys raising a kid is gunna mess anything up. Okay, so what you're saying is, if Ricky and Jerry raise a little girl, the polar ice caps will melt? No. Its nothing. Mother nature doesent give a **** who's raising the kid. We have free-will for a reason. Do what you want with it, especially if it's going to give a kid a loving home to grow up in when their REAL MOTHER AND FATHER left them because only opposite sexes can raise a kid right
Honestly, whatever makes them happy. Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness (<--Good movie).
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Daetyrnis: Well, I see why you say that reproduction is not the main destination of any species: because you saw in Discovery Channel that Lions wake up everyday at 5 a.m. to work on the Volkswagen industries cause he's saving money to buy A NEW SET OF GOLF CLUBS!
Nice one. I can see how this completely adds to your point and undermines my own, in fact, I'm not sure if I can believe in gay rights anymore.
No. He fights to survive and to procriate. The famale selects the best male to have the best offspring!
The male lion fights / hunts, and he procreates. He does not fight / hunt to procreate. There's a difference. Learn it.
Human beings changed the purpose, and that's why, today, we have weak, sick people, mutilated, deformed people. The thinking hability is what drove the humanity away from the development of the species. We, for what we became, are going down, not up.
That is because of humans having no natural predators, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
And I say itīs impossible to have biological kids because I spent the whole day searching for mu uterus and have yet to find it! Biological kids is a term I used to designate the natural conception of a person: the sex relation between a man and a woman, that permits the crossing over of genetic material and the veriety of humankind.
Bill and Bob (both gay) are happily married (legally), and wish to have a child. They choose to have their friend Susan, who willingly agrees, to be a surrogate mother. That means that they put Bill and/or Bob's sperm into Susan's uterus, to create a baby. Biologically. Infertile straight couples do the same thing. Lesbians can get donors as well.
I really can understand why people wonīt see a "right" order of things anymore. Ideology changes us so much that we belive that right is whatever we determine to be right.
Yep, right and wrong are subjective terms. There are no set rules that bind all beings, no clear cut definition of morally right and morally wrong. For example, I believe that it is right to allow couples, regardless of gender, to have children. You seemingly do not.
So, there is a male and a female. Itīs not wrong for males to feel attraction for other males (same for fems), absolutely. But in procriation, there is absolutely no compatibility in men-men reproduction,
See above.
and, therefore, men-men child raising.
So by your logic, infertile couples should not raise children?
Nature made things one way. Used to be right. We changed it. Itīs not right anymore. What does this mean?
Sorry, nature has done this for a long time as well. For example, male penguins sometimes 'mate' for life. [Link] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals).[Non-wiki link] (http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/02/021105penguins.htm) In fact, homosexuality is prominent in animals just as it is in humans.
MANKIND > NATURE. Is this right?
Mankind and nature don't really have numeric values, so I fail to see how mankind is greater than nature.
-
Originally posted by Revolution911
Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness (<--Good movie).
Man, I was on your side until you said that. What a load of crock that movie was.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Having NO motherly figure is different from having two dads or a strange mother figure.
THis isn't all about love. Society is out there numbnuts, kids will point comment. Other parents will feel prejudice. Kid'll need psichological assistance! Y'all saying itīs cool to be raised by two men cause you never put yourself in the place. Itīs easy to say it would be easy when you never knocked the wood yourself.
Daetyrnis: Well, I see why you say that reproduction is not the main destination of any species: because you saw in Discovery Channel that Lions wake up everyday at 5 a.m. to work on the Volkswagen industries cause he's saving money to buy A NEW SET OF GOLF CLUBS! No. He fights to survive and to procriate. The famale selects the best male to have the best offspring! Human beings changed the purpose, and that's why, today, we have weak, sick people, mutilated, deformed people. The thinking hability is what drove the humanity away from the development of the species. We, for what we became, are going down, not up.
And I say itīs impossible to have biological kids because I spent the whole day searching for mu uterus and have yet to find it! Biological kids is a term I used to designate the natural conception of a person: the sex relation between a man and a woman, that permits the crossing over of genetic material and the veriety of humankind.
I really can understand why people wonīt see a "right" order of things anymore. Ideology changes us so much that we belive that right is whatever we determine to be right. So, there is a male and a female. Itīs not wrong for males to feel attraction for other males (same for fems), absolutely. But in procriation, there is absolutely no compatibility in men-men reproduction, and, therefore, men-men child raising.
Nature made things one way. Used to be right. We changed it. Itīs not right anymore. What does this mean?
MANKIND > NATURE. Is this right?
You do know there is videos and photographical evidence of a male lion riding another male lion, yes? Not much reproduction going on there, IMO.
But seriously, you say that people will comment on the guy having 2 fathers. Reading your post, I have no point that you would, though I do not see why everyone would.
Just so you know, a friend of mine has two mothers, and, alas, he's the smartes in class, is happier than anyone I know, has no psychological problem at all.
As for the nature thing, I point out what I said about lions, and I could give some other examples. There's this species of monkeys which lesbianism is more common that 'normal' sex. Some species of birds attract other of the same sex to help build the nest.
-
Human beings changed the purpose, and that's why, today, we have weak, sick people, mutilated, deformed people.
What are you talking about here? Babies with birth defects have been happening since before even humans walked the earth. I get what you're saying but it's rediculous to connect it to homosexuality. IF ANYTHING, homosexuality will help mankind reduce the goddamn population on this earth. More adoptions = good thing, reguardless of the gender of the two adopting parents.
-
There's a girl named Shannon who sits next to me in my 2nd hour. Her Mom died during child birth and her father ran out on her mother before she was born. Her aunt took her in and raised her. Her aunt's a lesbian with a partner(they'd be married by now if not for the legal system).
Shannon is engaged to her boyfriend and pregnant by him. I can see how the natural pattern of reproduction is being distorted here.
-
Originally posted by Osmose
There's a girl named Shannon who sits next to me in my 2nd hour. Her Mom died during child birth and her father ran out on her mother before she was born. Her aunt took her in and raised her. Her aunt's a lesbian with a partner(they'd be married by now if not for the legal system).
Shannon is engaged to her boyfriend and pregnant by him. I can see how the natural pattern of reproduction is being distorted here.
Yeah. Sadly, because of the Gay influence here, the baby will SURELY be born without limbs, and with bad downs syndrome. You know...Un-natural airborn gaycinogens.
Here, in Canada, in my part of it, Gay marrage is legal. However, Churches arent complying. I guess theres always J.O.P's.
But there are gay christians out there.. I even saw a lesbian muslim feminist on a debate show. There are gays in every creed...no matter how closet they are. Its sad that religons that preach forgiving sins cant "Forgive" the gay thing for the sake of, you know, compassion and love and stronger communities and families...Sad.. but if a religon wants to adhere to that, that would be the perogative of that means of clergy. If I were to legally demand that they dont marry gays, I would be no better than the fundamentalist right wing douches that preach against this here cause.
Ive always thought that if a church chooses not to marry gays, And legislature is passed to enable gays to marry, the church should have to pay property tax.
Honestly, churches are almost a corporate entity anyways...they should pay taxes.
They should've had to do that when church and state seperated.
But I digress.
To deny a Fit, responisble loving gay couple a chance to rear a child that is orphaned, or neglected, or in state care is not in the best intrest of the child.
It is also promoting a double standard. They'll give foster kids to shitty couples that are doing the fostering strictly of a subsidy cheque, but not to a couple of Gays who just want to have a family and love a child, and possibly raise it to be a compassionate tolerant individual capable of making choices and being able to better empathize with both sides of an issue.
Whatever....Im giving a text wall. Ill get off my horse here...
-
I love the injection of humour that you guys put in your posts. It's really lol making.
Anyway, last year on an episode of playschool (I don't know what countries get this, but basically it's a childrens show where they read stories and make fun things and play with toys) a LOT of controversy was stirred up due to a segment they had, which was like your basic "child tells you about something like when they play on the playground or whatever" except the kid in this clip had two mothers.
However, s/he was not a hunchback with downs syndrome and a heavy case of SuperAIDS. S/he was just your average happy little kid.
-
A HAPPY HEALTHY NORMAL KID IN A GAY FAMILY! it was obviously a farce staged by the evil gay overlords.
-
Originally posted by SaiKar
Originally posted by Revolution911
Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness (<--Good movie).
Man, I was on your side until you said that. What a load of crock that movie was.[/B]
It was a good movie. What're you, a homosexual?
-
Well good ol' Tomi has something to say about this.
First of all, I'm not a homophobe. I have friends who are gay/lesbian, and I am perfectly fine with that. However, when it comes down to it, you need to take a look at the purpose of life (oversimplified, but ok nonetheless). One of the major purposes in nature is to reproduce, and when homosexuality is involved, there is a biological term called "Mechanical Isolation." It means the parts just don't fit. You claim homosexuality happens often in nature, but if this really exists to such a caliber like you speak of, the process of natural selection (which includes how well they can reproduce) would cause all of those homosexual species to slowly die out, or at least diminish in numbers, because they are unable to produce the next generation.
I know not all of this connects together perfectly, but I'm just throwing out ideas.
-
Originally posted by Tomi
Well good ol' Tomi has something to say about this.
First of all, I'm not a homophobe. I have friends who are gay/lesbian, and I am perfectly fine with that. However, when it comes down to it, you need to take a look at the purpose of life (oversimplified, but ok nonetheless). One of the major purposes in nature is to reproduce, and when homosexuality is involved, there is a biological term called "Mechanical Isolation." It means the parts just don't fit. You claim homosexuality happens often in nature, but if this really exists to such a caliber like you speak of, the process of natural selection (which includes how well they can reproduce) would cause all of those homosexual species to slowly die out, or at least diminish in numbers, because they are unable to produce the next generation.
I know not all of this connects together perfectly, but I'm just throwing out ideas.
But you see, it does not take homosexuals to make more homosexuals; variance of orientation can literally spring up anywhere. Sure, the homo penguins will die most likely without offspring, but that has little to no bearing on whether a newborn penguin will be homosexual.
:|
I love the injection of humour that you guys put in your posts. It's really lol making.
Knock, knock.
-
I don`t see where I said gay couples raise gay children.
I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.
I don`t see why some people are so narrow minded that when they see a ">" sign, they imediately relate it to numbers.
I can`t find the part where I state that sickness and birth defects are related to homosexuality.
I don't see how pointing gramatical mistakes will contribute to the discussion or even make a point stronger.
You can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took. There are so many things involved, and I actually had to study them at University, so it`s not about "Gabriel`s parents told him gay people are bad and dirty". I tried to go as far as typing at work could go, and still people put words in my post.
See, it`s pretty hard to express a point in your non native language.
I apologize if I seem to get hot headed when it comes to discussions, but it`s craved in my lawier`s damn spirit, so I tend to take it to the end.
I don`t care, really. Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).
-
Unless you are one of the *insertwordhere*s who thinks it's genetic..
EDIT: Boo beat me to the post.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
I don`t see where I said gay couples raise gay children.
Neither do I.
I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.
But you mention several times that homosexuality is directly related with human culture and society, or whatnot. Lions don't really care about our crazy ways, yet they're still gay.
I don`t see why some people are so narrow minded that when they see a ">" sign, they imediately relate it to numbers.
That was my odd sense of humour if anything, it wasn't meant the be serious.
I can`t find the part where I state that sickness and birth defects are related to homosexuality.
But you did say that these things are the result of not focusing everything on reproduction. Which is still, in my opinion, untrue.
You can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.
There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life. There, proved you wrong.
There are so many things involved, and I actually had to study them at University, so it`s not about "Gabriel`s parents told him gay people are bad and dirty". I tried to go as far as typing at work could go, and still people put words in my post.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that it's more than parental influence that causes homophobia? I would've said that that is a given.
See, it`s pretty hard to express a point in your non native language.
Doesn't mean you're subject to special treatment.
I apologize if I seem to get hot headed when it comes to discussions, but it`s craved in my lawier`s damn spirit, so I tend to take it to the end.
No problem, I enjoy a good debate too.
I don`t care, really. Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).
One, you still haven't refuted anything about having an aunt/uncle/grandparent/friend of the family/whatever filling in that spot. Two, I think a death of a parent or a break up would be more traumatic on a child than having two parents. IMO.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
I don`t see where I say people can`t be homosexual, even though lions have homo sex.
You said it was not natural, hence I'm proving that it exists on nature.
Originally posted by Tomi
Well good ol' Tomi has something to say about this.
First of all, I'm not a homophobe. I have friends who are gay/lesbian, and I am perfectly fine with that. However, when it comes down to it, you need to take a look at the purpose of life (oversimplified, but ok nonetheless). One of the major purposes in nature is to reproduce, and when homosexuality is involved, there is a biological term called "Mechanical Isolation." It means the parts just don't fit. You claim homosexuality happens often in nature, but if this really exists to such a caliber like you speak of, the process of natural selection (which includes how well they can reproduce) would cause all of those homosexual species to slowly die out, or at least diminish in numbers, because they are unable to produce the next generation.
I know not all of this connects together perfectly, but I'm just throwing out ideas.
I never said that all lions were homosexual.
-
XDD
Lol at the adverts
Also:
oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).
Good lord, the way you phrase this makes it sound like gays are worse than death or break up!
"I'm sorry, son, your dad's dead. At least he wasn't a gay man."
Same sex adopted kids might not fit your definition of normal as they grow up. Hell, they might actually be more understanding of people who are different to themselves! Wouldn't that be awful!! Maybe you're afraid of the fact that the kid might grow up thinking that homosexuality is normal, and then forget to throw his own son out when he turns out to be gay!
In a world where this orientation can still drive people to disown their loved ones, I think people's viewpoints need to change. Kids with gay parents would help make this a reality. I don't see why it could be a bad thing.
-
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Originally posted by AlmeidabooYou can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.
There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life. There, I didn't mention mankind.[/B]
Hahaha, yes you did! You said it right at the end where you say you didn't say it! You got TRAP'D!
-
Marriage always has been a symbolic thing, not something religious. In Greek times people also got married. Dit religion get involved? No. Did homosexuality become taboo? It was a taboo if you were NOT homosexual.
-
Allright. Im going to state the obvious.
Its human nature to ****
If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna **** him.
That dosent make you any less capable of finding berries or pigs to eat.
-
Originally posted by gemini
Allright. Im going to state the obvious.
Its human nature to ****
If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna **** him.
That dosent make you any less capable of finding berries or pigs to eat.
... ... ... ?
*re-reads the post*
Oooooh, you meant '****', I was pretty sure it was '****'. Which sounded weird:
"If youre stranded on a desert island with a man for 25 years...
chances are, youre gonna **** him".
-
Originally posted by Razor
Originally posted by Daetyrnis
Originally posted by AlmeidabooYou can`t speak of homosexuality without speaking about mankind and the ways it took.
There have been instances where homosexual penguins mate for life. There, I didn't mention mankind.[/B]
Hahaha, yes you did! You said it right at the end where you say you didn't say it! You got TRAP'D![/B]
Oh no!! It's a trap!!
*runs back to edit post*
-
Originally posted by SaiKar
Originally posted by Revolution911
Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness (<--Good movie).
Man, I was on your side until you said that. What a load of crock that movie was.[/B]
Hey, I liked it too!
I should mention: My moronicity has blinded me to the fact that the civil rights ARE in effect. People are just against 'em.
But it's too late--the good people of Charas are at each others' throats about it.
I should mention, there's a species of flightless owls that, during mating season, have been known to mount logs.
Yes, fallen tree trunks, a.k.a., logs.
-
Originally posted by Djanki
I should mention, there's a species of flightless owls that, during mating season, have been known to mount logs.
Yes, fallen tree trunks, a.k.a., logs.
Thank God I'm not the onl- uh, never mind.
-
Ive got a thing for Geoducks myself.
Hawt.
-
Originally posted by Almeidaboo
Still I think gay people shouldn't be able to adopt children, because of the lack of the oposite sex presence cause by abnormal facts, not natural facts (such as death of a parent or break up).
There's two things wrong with this.
1. How is a breakup or death more unnatural than homosexuality? It's definitely more mainstream and more common, but it's hardly less natural unless you have a bias against homosexuality in the first place, which, if you're arguing about why you have that bias, you can't really consider.
2. The reasons of why the child doesn't have that influence affect the lack itself? I mean, if my Dad dies, I lose a masculine influence. If I have two moms, I lose a masculine influence (Unless you consider that women can definitely give such an influence if they try or use someone else to fill the gap). Either one results in the same thing - less of a masculine influence.
You can argue that it would be mentally easier to understand if my father died and I knew him, although that is a moot point because we really don't know - is there a study to cite for proof? No. However, you cannot simply say that you would rather have different reasons for the same result, unless you consider the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, which, again, cannot be reasonably considered when that is the point that we are debating on.
-
This is a little unrelated, but you know what pissed me off? When brokeback mountain came out and a lot of the older people I knew were dissin' the movie real bad. And how the actors got so much **** for it. I never saw the movie, but like, come on, the only reason they hated it so much was because it wasn't about a cowboy and cowgirl, it was two cowboys, which I guess offended the southerners. GOD FORBID a righteous southern man be homosexual!
And another thing, there was some big stink about a child's show where one of the character had two dad's or maybe it was two mom's. And the episode was prevented from airing. **** like that makes me wanna get up and fight, like, literally.
-
I broke up laughing while reading some of theses posts above.
(Dunno why)
I think that religions are now trying to get many more people to dis homosexuality. Personally, I don't care. If they make a good friend, then why should I care? Why should anyone care? Its not like its harming you.