It was a coward's remark and will be disregarded as one. :smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
Printable View
It was a coward's remark and will be disregarded as one. :smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
This a million times.
Much like the army using the argument that a homosexual person is unfit to serve in the army because their sexuality might be disruptive to others in their unit, or because someone might blackmail them, etc, etc, once again, the problem is never the actual homosexuality itself, but the heterosexuals who haven't grown the heck up.
You know, there would be no negative consequences to being gay if it weren't for the straight people persecuting them. It really isn't they gay people who are the problem, and I'm really getting tired of seeing rights denied to these people because of what straight people might do in their company.
On that same topic, here are some arguments that homosexuality is somehow wrong or abnormal:
1. Fewer people are known to be gay than straight. (Of course, there are fewer people who are white than there are non-white, I guess that makes being Caucasian sick and wrong and unnatural too.) This is argument from majority, which is wrong.
2. Due to a lack of stable long-term relationships, gay people are more prone to STDs. Therefore being gay is immoral, and straight is great. (Of course, if they were allowed to have stable long-term relationships, such as marriage, which they have been asking for for some time now, or if society wouldn't treat their relationships like gutter trash, then there would be no difference between gay and straight in that regard.) This ignores the artificial differences created by the restrictions placed on gay people and the harsh, unwelcome environment they find themselves in.
3. Being raised by gay people might make the child get bullied more. (Sure, I was never bullied as a child because my parents were divorced, or because I was short, or wore glasses, or kept to myself and was socially awkward. I guess that means straight people are unfit parents too.) This argument implies that it is the fault of gay people that straight people have issues with them, which I find disgusting. That's like blaming black folks for the Ku Klux Klan. Maybe black people shouldn't be allowed to have children because some Neo-Nazi group might persecute them? TOTALLY THE MOST AWESOMEST REASONING EVAR.
4. My Bible says it is wrong! (Your Bible also says that polygamy, concubines, slavery and incest are perfectly fine. The religion contradicts itself on these points at times as well. Also, divorce is not to be allowed either. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'" Let's suggest that a lot of the arguments that suggest the Bible isn't exactly the greatest source of moral righteousness often rely on the Old Testament, which doesn't apply to modern Christianity. Sure, ignore the OT all you like. But then again, that's where the section on homosexuality being an abomination is. So let's pick and choose which verses we like, and which we don't like. Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." My goodness. Cross-breeding animals? Farming with two kinds of seed? Blended fabrics? The Lord has a long list of strange things he finds evil. It almost sounds like someone just made this stuff up to control people, but that couldn't possibly be true, or else we'd all look pretty foolish. Better stick with it, or else this could get embarrassing. I guess being gay is wrong, because that's better than the rest of us being somehow wrong. Let's also ignore 90% of what the Bible says is wrong and what the prescribed punishments for those wrongs are, because strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong. But ignoring that one part in Leviticus, well we can't do that, because not strictly adhering to the Bible would be wrong.
5. It just feels wrong to me. I can't ignore my gut on this one. I just know being gay is wrong or inferior to being straight. My emotions never lie! As Ron White said, "the next time you have a thought: let it go." If you can't even articulate why it is wrong beyond your own particular prejudice towards it, maybe that's because it's nothing but straight-up prejudice, and there is no reason for it. Once again, gay people are forced to suffer because other people are the ones with the problem. It's the same old story, over and over again.
Need I really repeat my point about the fact that gay people already can and do have biological children and raise them just as well as straight people? It's not like there is no data on this point. We have data. The data is, they're no different from us, and at worst, any problems the children have fitting in are a result of intolerance on the part of other children, who by the way, are notorious for having absolutely no reason to behave like little balls of rancid [blank], but do so anyway and in the most cruel fashion. I suppose we should take our cues for how to have an advanced, mature society from schoolyard bullies, because they obviously aren't maladjusted hateful little attention whores, but paragons of virtue and enlightenment we should emulate in adulthood.
Some folks aren't going to change their mind on this, and I don't mean to be abusive toward them personally. It's the idea of it which I feel is worthy of criticism, direct and pointed criticism. And this is an idea which is worthy of being widely criticized, and hopefully soon, forgotten entirely, like the idea that people of different races shouldn't intermarry, because their children will be treated differently and have a harder time growing up, or for other more disgusting reasons that the aforementioned "reason" is meant to cover up and apologize for. That idea is equally as valid as this idea, and based on the same stellar logic, frankly.
There are times when I honestly can't see how this is even still being debated, because I feel that anyone who looks at this objectively and with a clear head would come to the same conclusion, if they are a fair-minded person; but then I remember that we can't seem to agree on what constitutes justice and fairness on practically any issue, and being fair-minded isn't a requirement for having an opinion.
Wouldn't make out a point of how it is today, as gay parenting gets more accepted they also have to prove less. They have to run a little faster now. There will also be absolute scumbags once it's more normalised. Don't think it's all that much an argument against the father/mother thing. I'm with you guys but walking with caution
Its getting better though; these days it can't be argued that gays are unnatural anymore, the prevailing opinion now is that homosexuality is actually natures way to prevent overpopulation. Which is kinda ironic when you think about it, considering many homosexuals want to bring up children.
I never understood why it matters if being gay is natural or a choice :shrug:
Consenting adults can do whatever the heck they want with each other; it's none of our business and it is completely irrelevant if they were born with their preference or if it was their choice. Mister X preferring men over women doesn't make him a lesser being. Many people make choices or have preferences that can be seen as weird by others.
Why does nobody have a problem with the [insert religion of your choice] extremist indoctrinating his children with the most moronic and backwards ideas, because he's married to a woman, but are there people having a problem with two intelligent, gay men with college degrees raising their child with an open mind because they are not married to a woman? Is being a religious extremist natural or are you born like that?
Meh.
Knowledgablists said it so it must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Realy? Well I dont know about your knowledgablists, I watched a documentary.
Gah! Why is it the part about my three lesbians lovers that gets disregarded as rhetorical fantasy!?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Mad Arab
It's just plain wrong and disgusting. Bad enough to think of two girls or two guys doing the tango in the bedroom yet alone raising a child.
Congratulations!Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITECubKingWarman88
This comment just won the "most irrelevant argument of the century award"!
Seconded.
Do us and the world a favour - cut the sack off.
~:smoking:
I find it pathetic that you feel the need to find what I said to be pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
They think they are the wise yet never cease to feed the troll. :shrug:
But, hey, it's those guys; they should SMASH YER FACE WITH THEIR INDISPUTABLY REASONABLE AND AS OUTRAGEOUS HAMMERS OF SARCASTIC TRUTH SO THAT YOU COULD LEARN THE WAY OF THE NINJA !!!1111ONEGODONETRUTH
[...]
As long as you're enclosing something worthy of considering with your posts -applicable both to the dumb, if any, and the wise-, you're doing great and I'm enjoying the perspectives proposed, please keep it so.
:bow:
Those are not the words of a young, straight male. Are we engaging in a bit of self-loathing, Warman? :grin:Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITECubKingWarman88
heh, It would be kinda funny if we find out that all along our resident troll is a woman.
This post wins thread. Here is your answer, LeftEyeNine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
No one is saying gay people are bad or even that gay couples having children is bad (who could or would stop them?). I think the only point being debated is if a mother\father couple wants to adopt Child X and a gay couple also wants to adopt Child X, all things being equal, it is in the child's best interests to have a mother and a father.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Which doesn't matter because more childeren need to be adoptedQuote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwi...s/adoption.cfm
But God forbid I stop the collective musing that is going on in this thread. Its like congress has hijacked the backroom
Your argument makes no sense. The world humans have been living in have been growing more and more artificial, disconnected from nature. We no longer live among the trees or in caves. According to you, we are all slightly messed up because we have not been brought up in a more natural way. When did our common ancestors go to school? Or work in an office for 40+ years? Saying that it is more "natural" is a terrible argument. It's no less natural than a single parent, or no parents (those that live entire first 18 years under state), and there are plenty of fully functional humans that come from those conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
No, what is going on is the other way. You are using babies as a tool to deny rights to gays. Your argument can be summarized as "think of the children, it isn't 'natural'".
I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
And I said that where?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Odd.
Ironically that probably accounts for why you seem more disconnected from society for reasons I will go over again right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
This is what you said: Having a mother and father is the natural way of things. It gives the child a more natural way of being brought up and intergrating with society.Quote:
And I said that where?
First, why is the natural way preferable? The only logical explanation is that it is somehow "better" than a "less natural" way of being brought up.
If you backtrack and tell me that the "natural" way is not better than a "non-natural" way, you have no argument.
If you want to tell me that the natural way is the better way, than it follows that we are all slightly dysfunctional because all of us have not been raised "naturally". We live in concrete buildings that stretch for miles, we spend most of our youth sitting in a chair learning and most of our adult lives sitting in a chair working. We have all been brought up in a completely artificial environment since birth, we must be so messed up compared to our ancestors back in the 1500s.
This is the main problem of the whole "it's not natural" argument. You never define what is natural or what isn't and give no reasoning why. If you want to say that a mom and dad is natural and two dads or moms isn't because that is how it has "been" then my point stands.
Give reasoning or you have no argument.Quote:
Yes, there are fully functional people that come from all kinds of backrounds. But your assertion that a child being raised with no parents at all being just as natural a situation as a child being raised with paprents is dead wrong. The natural way for a child to be raised is with parents.
If they are proven to be clean, law abiding, loving parents, yes the state should give them a baby, because to refuse to so that a "proper" set of parents can have them first in essentially a form of segregation. Hetero couples get to sit in the front of the bus and all the homos need to sit in the back and give up their seats to any hetero that wants one. Congrats, that's bigot speak.Quote:
So in order to guarantee someone's rights the state has to give them a baby?
Odd.
For a child to have a mother and father is unnatural.
Our species have practiced the extended family unit for almost our entire hietory, where all the kids are pooled together and taken care of by a group. To limit a child to just two parents is a social experiment denying the child the right to all the different rolemodels the extended family would give.
I admit to being surprised that saying a child should have a mother and a father paints me as being disconnected from society.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
They had chairs and buildings in 1500.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Natural in that it takes a mother and father to procreate. Natural in that the vast majority of countries, cultures, and civilizations, going far back in history, a child having a mother and a father was always seen as natural. Granted there are always exceptions, hell, there are probably places where eating your first born was considered a propos, but such exceptions aside, mom and dad was where it was at. And it still is.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You're hot when you bark orders. :smiley:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
That was a riot. You do have a wonderful sense of the absurd. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Over at the chainsaw forum they think I am the worst kind of left-wing fag-loving commie scumbag. Over here, I'm a right-wing homo-hating bigot. I should get you over there for a visit; the fireworks would be astounding.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go take Ryan Seacrest's seat at the front of the bus. :laugh4:
Give reasoning why two people have to be in a sexual relationship to raise a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Give reasoning why there has to be two parents and not ten.
etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Ok, so the hetero couple should always be preferred over the gay couple for the sole reason that they are heterosexual?
That's discrimination. In our civilised, western societies, we no longer do discrimination, unless it is justifiable that is.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, you haven't justified why gay couples should be discriminated against.
I wonder... I generally understand that a child realy needs both a mother and a father figure, would a gay family be deficient in that respect?
I have reservations, they could be doing it just to pretend that they are something they are not and never can be, using the baby for activism. Do they really want to be a good parent, or just seek acknowledgement of the fact that they can be just as good a parent. I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Fragony probably isn't bigoted, but he seems rather fond of conspiracies....
Depends on when they are adopted, denying a child the milk from it's mother should be made criminal in every thinkable circumstance anyway.
What conspiracy would that be, just activism. Is it that far a stretch that they are really only looking for recognision for what isn't the real thing, I would call that child-abuseQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore