EPTOn March 05 2004 18:46 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
I have news for you.
You're never going to have a kid.
I have news for you.
You're never going to have a kid.
im not?
Gay Marriage has come to Portland - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
im not? | ||
|
iggs999
Russian Federation722 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:17 Teroru wrote: Since every single homosexual i know came from heterosexual parents, i would say it has no fucking effect at all. thats obviously because there are more heterosexual parents, imagine a place where there was a balanced proportion of gay / straight couples, the gays would adopt kids and some of those kids would become gay , so on and so forth. man would be wiped out due to lack of reproduction!~~~!!!1!1 | ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:47 DV8 wrote: Rofl, I think i'll stop now since going further will only lead to an insane amount of hypothetical's. Why?? If your best hypothetical arguement to choose from so far was that my kid will be teased, and i have now taken out the possibility of my kid being teased, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH ME HAVING A KID. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:47 Teroru wrote: Oh yeah they handle it alright, http://www.pflag.org/education/schools.htmlMy kid wont be gay. If gays are capable of handling the hatred in a school system, i think their heterosexual children will do just fine . thanks ~ | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:50 Teroru wrote: Why?? If your best hypothetical arguement to choose from so far was that my kid will be teased, and i have now taken out the possibility of my kid being teased, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE PROBLEM WITH ME HAVING A KID. You're not the problem, Society is, but until that changes you have to apply some sense to the situation. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:54 ObsoleteLogic wrote: You might adopt a kid, you might have a kid grow up in your household, but you will never *HAVE* a child. Do you understand now? Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. Bingo. And I think "be logical" is the active sentence for this thread. | ||
|
iggs999
Russian Federation722 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:22 Teroru wrote: What do u mean by female counterpart? Tell me what a male lacks in teaching his male son, that he cant possibly provide that a female can. And then tell me if every single women in the world has the ability to provide that. And then tell me that that reason is enough to not allow fags to have children. feminine insight....its what a household of 2 men would inherently lack. Dont ask me to "elaborate" that, you know what the fuck it is, do not try to pull some contrived shit out of your ass such as men have that same insight, how can prove that a man cant provide that, etc. Its as simple as MEN ==/== WOMEN. Even straight men lack that insight, that is why its NECESSARY to have a woman in the household. If some straight men who pursue members of the opposite sex lack it, imagine how greatly fags would lack it considering they have no interest in females as specimens with which to reproduce. Considering not every child is a little divine angel, and that the majority are born with personality predispositions towards something or another, a child raised by a gay couple in the right (wrong) circumstances could undergo traumitization at an early age and have his whole personality altered as well as sex drive and outlook towards OTHER gay couples and men // women in general. This would obviously be developed into issues by teasing, and *LACK* of a woman in the household. It could be very validly argued that women play the role of sympathizer and a man simply cannot provide that same sympathy and nurture that a woman inherently posses. They would end up developing a sexless monster or some contrived psycho with a contrived view of the world due to an early disfunctional environment. Of course sometimes some of this could be avoided by simply having a decent gay couple which raise you right, although the womanly presence would still not be accounted for..but i ask you this: Why go looking for a potential problem in adopting and argue against the problem that YOU are potentially starting, it simply would not be there if you do not go looking to instigate it..by that same "logic" it is essentially saying that you as a parent are willing to compromise a childs well-being in order to satisfy your wanting of a "child", regardless of how good a parent you are sometimes some things simply cannot be accounted for such as the PRESENCE of a woman, and although you DO have kind intentions set, you are in actuality harming the child. SO DONT DO IT..and by the way for the retards arguing "who said different is worse", theres a reason why theres a majority and a minority, and while the minority is not necessarily always BAD the majority IS necessarily for the most part GOOD, that is why the two distinctions exist. normal(general majority) ---> more likely to exist , not normal (general(?) minorty) ---> less likely to exist. you know what i mean ,fuck | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 19:27 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Excal you seem like a pretty cool guy, ever play west? (yeah this is horribly offtopic, sorry) Yeah, I'm actually on right now (but tabbed out). | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
 .It's often hard to tell when someone does (or says) the right thing primarily because of their ability to make a rational decision, and when someone does the right thing primarily because they're following their religion / conscience / bias / other emotional reactions. Now, Excal reveals that he probably falls into the second category. I support giving homosexuals the right to marry. If anyone should be stopped from marrying, then it should be done on a case-by-case basis, just like how our legal system (ideally) works -- as someone else brought up. Also, it would be stopped for logical reasons, not because "My God owns marriage". And I say "My God" because obviously Excalibur can't speak for "The" God of Christianity  ; more importantly, he can't speak for any other Christians, so he's essentially claiming that marriage belongs to him and anyone who believes the same things that he does.As for homosexuals being permitted to have children, I am currently (though with mediocre confidence) in favour of yes, because there's already a large number of heterosexuals who are permitted to have children who would make dreadful parents. Therefore, even if there is a higher chance that homosexuals will make for bad parents (including the ill effects that Beyonder talked about), it will be trivial in comparison to the number of children growing up poorly with heterosexual parents. Consequently, the fact that this would give individuals such as Teroru an opportunity to raise children -- which they deserve because it is fair treatment -- imo outweighs the possibilities of bad parents or ill-effects on the child, as they are seen in proportion to the number of ill-raised children in the care of heterosexuals. The argument against gay people having kids that worries me the most is how the children might be treated. But, Teroru, for one, sounds like he won't need to rely on an accomodating environment for him to be able to raise his children well. I'm sure that many other good gay parents would do the same and try extra hard to raise their children well. Lastly, this heightened concern will only start to dissipate in proportion to the dissipation of anti-gay prejudices, so that doesn't worry me. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 19:57 Bill307 wrote: Well, I can honestly say I have lost virtually all respect for Excalibur .It's often hard to tell when someone does (or says) the right thing primarily because of their ability to make a rational decision, and when someone does the right thing primarily because they're following their religion / conscience / bias / other emotional reactions. Now, Excal reveals that he probably falls into the second category. I support giving homosexuals the right to marry. If anyone should be stopped from marrying, then it should be done on a case-by-case basis, just like how our legal system (ideally) works -- as someone else brought up. Also, it would be stopped for logical reasons, not because "My God owns marriage". And I say "My God" because obviously Excalibur can't speak for "The" God of Christianity ; more importantly, he can't speak for any other Christians, so he's essentially claiming that marriage belongs to him and anyone who believes the same things that he does.As for homosexuals being permitted to have children, I am currently (though with mediocre confidence) in favour of yes, because there's already a large number of heterosexuals who are permitted to have children who would make dreadful parents. Therefore, even if there is a higher chance that homosexuals will make for bad parents (including the ill effects that Beyonder talked about), it will be trivial in comparison to the number of children growing up poorly with heterosexual parents. Consequently, the fact that this would give individuals such as Teroru an opportunity to raise children -- which they deserve because it is fair treatment -- imo outweighs the possibilities of bad parents or ill-effects on the child, as they are seen in proportion to the number of ill-raised children in the care of heterosexuals. The argument against gay people having kids that worries me the most is how the children might be treated. But, Teroru, for one, sounds like he won't need to rely on an accomodating environment for him to be able to raise his children well. I'm sure that many other good gay parents would do the same and try extra hard to raise their children well. Lastly, this heightened concern will only start to dissipate in proportion to the dissipation of anti-gay prejudices, so that doesn't worry me. Don't get the wrong idea. Like I said I don't make the rules. There is no bias present in what I've been saying (besides admitting that I don't approve of the act of homosexuality). I'm just restating what the intention of marriage is, what it means, and what it stands for. There have been a lot of definitions being thrown around but none of them are rooted in facts except for what I have said. I am just presenting facts as well as the meaning behind them. There is no fluff behind what I'm saying. I have already explained the fundamental differences between civil unions and marriage. One is a religious institution and one is not. Why do they need to be combined? It's fine if they are considered equal in the government's eyes, but why is that not good enough for gay marriage proponents? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:04 ObsoleteLogic wrote: whats your sn Excal? (I'm on Euro now, but I'll add you later or some such) You get one guess ^^ | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
P.S. No, I'm not going to try and support this, because I know I am right, and if you disagree, I know you are wrong. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 15:06 Bill and Bill wrote: Terrou, Simple Question: Do you think a kid would be more likely to turn out homosexual if his parents were straight or gay? there is no "more" or "less" likely to be any sexual orientation. have you ever met a kid who could "force" himself or herself to be gay ? i sure as fuck couldn't. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 18:54 ObsoleteLogic wrote: if you were reading teroru's posts, you wouldnt have posted what you just did. re read them and find out why your post is incorrect. hint: inseminationYou might adopt a kid, you might have a kid grow up in your household, but you will never *HAVE* a child. Do you understand now? Its something that comes about fundamentally by combining the efforts of both the male and female reproductive organs. People see this so backwards nowadays. Our genitals are for reproduction, they just so happen to be pleasurable when stimulated. If you want to argue that, ask yourself the question as to which is more important for the survival of the human race. Be logical. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:29 intotherei wrote: if you were reading teroru's posts, you wouldnt have posted what you just did. re read them and find out why your post is incorrect. hint: insemination Artificial insemination in no way implies he will be having sex with the mother. ObsoleteLogic was pointing out that there needs to be actual sexual contact to have a child. | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:31 Excalibur_Z wrote: Artificial insemination in no way implies he will be having sex with the mother. ObsoleteLogic was pointing out that there needs to be actual sexual contact to have a child. even if you tried to discredit the aritficial insemination as "having a child" which is pretty hard.. he could STILL have sex with a willing woman to have a child (unlikely but .00000001% chance beats the word "never") so he's still wrong :O | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12237 Posts
On March 05 2004 20:37 intotherei wrote: even if you tried to discredit the aritficial insemination as "having a child" which is pretty hard.. he could STILL have sex with a willing woman to have a child (unlikely but .00000001% chance beats the word "never") so he's still wrong :O You're really grasping at straws here aren't you? | ||
| ||
