Civil Rights Movement...

[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?

[Moosetroop11]

Yes it is. Because we are mankind, not nature, and we have to live for ourselves or render existance pointless.

[Ben]

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.

[drenrin2120]

Wow, almeidaboo, you surprise me there.  

Gemini pretty much said it all.

[Revolution911]

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).

[Daetyrnis]

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].[Non-wiki link]  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.

[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.

[Grandy]

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.

[drenrin2120]

 

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.

[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.

[Ben]

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...

[Razor]

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.

[Ben]

A HAPPY HEALTHY NORMAL KID IN A GAY FAMILY! it was obviously a farce staged by the evil gay overlords.

[Revolution911]

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?

[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.