So, we need more gay people to have kids...

Originally Posted by Beskar

That is really incorrect. Pregnancy is the most serious, what is more serious than that, is Pregnancy and HIV at the sametime.

I probably have a different perspective to you, the way I look at it pregnancy is more an inconvenience with a definate upside. Every other consequence is some form of increasingly serious disease with no upside.

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

"So, we need more gay people to have kids..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

So, specifically, we need more lesbian people to have kids.

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

I write poetry.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You have issues, really.

Anyway, pregnancy is hardly the most negative outcome of having sex, it's probably the least serious if anything.

Uhm..... I have "issues" because I don't want to knock someone up or get an std....? Care to explain?

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

"So, we need more gay people to have kids..."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

So, specifically, we need more lesbian people to have kids.

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

ShambleS had the best quote ever about this:

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Hell I wouldnt Mind Lesbian parents my self...
It would Dedfinatly Boost your Street cred if your male..
All ya freinds would wanna have Sleep overs.

Him and Tribesman gone make the Backroom 50% worse, wish they'd toned it down when it mattered.

As do we.

Men are not becoming irrelavant, we are voulntarily turning in what it means to be a man

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm..... I have "issues" because I don't want to knock someone up or get an std....? Care to explain?

Your obsession with the condom as some sort of Holy Shield against trouble is not very healthy.

OLol I would rather be adopted by a upper middle class hetero family than an upper middle class homosexual family. Not because they would be worse parents, au contrare I. Can't imagine the ribbing said child would get from other children.

Eventually because of social engineering such issues will become moot.

I bet kadagar expected me as a athlete, catholic, male, american, teenager, conservative to be like, "no the gayz are evilz"

Once again false as a good looking (well not hideous) popular male I am very comfortable with my sexuality. I have a couple gay friends one who is open about it and another who has only told a few of us.

Originally Posted by Centurion1

OLol I would rather be adopted by a upper middle class hetero family than an upper middle class homosexual family. Not because they would be worse parents, au contrare I. Can't imagine the ribbing said child would get from other children.

Eventually because of social engineering such issues will become moot.

I bet kadagar expected me as a athlete, catholic, male, american, teenager, conservative to be like, "no the gayz are evilz"

Once again false as a good looking (well not hideous) popular male I am very comfortable with my sexuality. I have a couple gay friends one who is open about it and another who has only told a few of us.

Not really. You obviously have the technical skills required to get out on the internet, and somehow you adopted a will to further your cognitive skills by participating in debates on said net.

With that background, I would be more surprised if you were a gay basher :)


A friend of mine (American) had a fantastic quote about it: I am not saying all gay haters are stupid rednecks, but all stupid rednecks are gay haters.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Your obsession with the condom as some sort of Holy Shield against trouble is not very healthy.

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

One more step down the apparently inevitable road of male irrelevance.

You fellas in your teens and early 20's might want to start working on finding and developing skills that our eventual overlords (women) will find useful... or entertaining.

Wait... there was a time when they weren't our overlords?

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

Not true. Some of them may be damaged before they ever make it onto the user's penis. No method of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. Well, except maybe most surgical abortion procedures.

Originally Posted by Horetore

I went along with "I'm on the pill" once. The result was that I was nervous for the next 9 months. Not going down that road ever again, I tell you....

9 months? Wouldn't it be 1 or 2 months?

Interesting article. One amidst a sea of articles that suggest better outcomes for married heterosexual couples. The english article makes a mention of how the study was funded solely by gay and lesbian groups., that's interesting as I'm sure you would disregard studies done by "christian family groups" as biased to the extreme, a-priori.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

If something went wrong during production, it could be 0% effective.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Properly used, and taken care of, the condom is 100% effective. Not 99%, not 98%, but 100%.

And I know how to use one. So yeah, it really is my holy shield against making babies, and it makes the pope mad as well! Score!!

I refer you to my honourable friends below. The only 100% effective birth-control is no sexual contact, i.e. no heavy petting.

(Yes kids, that includes ear sex).

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Not true. Some of them may be damaged before they ever make it onto the user's penis. No method of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. Well, except maybe most surgical abortion procedures.

Thank you.

9 months? Wouldn't it be 1 or 2 months?

I would think three or four at the outside, but then if she was a one-night stand you never see again then you should have cold sweats for 18 years until you're no longer liable for child support. Provided, that is, that the prospect of having children terrifies you that much.

Originally Posted by Viking

If something went wrong during production, it could be 0% effective.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Interesting article. One amidst a sea of articles that suggest better outcomes for married heterosexual couples. The english article makes a mention of how the study was funded solely by gay and lesbian groups., that's interesting as I'm sure you would disregard studies done by "christian family groups" as biased to the extreme, a-priori.

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

"What is the effect of constant spanking and corperal punishment on children?"

"Why it is best for Children never to be heard, only seen?"

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which is why I made the point that this study could actually be used to argue for "traditional" conservative family values and abstinence, rather than homosexuality.

Well, it certainly should not be used as an argument "for" homosexuality. But it probably illustrates that there does not seem to be actual justification for not allowing gay people to have/adopt children.
Why apply different standards to homosexual people? There are obviously enough heterosexual people who are not most suitable to raise children, yet it goes without saying that it is part of their personal freedom to have children.
With regard to adoption - just apply the same standards to all potential parents - regardless of their sexuality. If there is no proof that homosexual parents have a negative effect on the development of a child, it should not be a criteria for the decision.

If it wasn't for straight people, there'd be no gay people.

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

If it wasn't for straight people, there'd be no gay people.

....and for his next performance, The Amazing Hosa will need the services of one hen's egg and one chicken. May we have a volunteer from the audience?

Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

Hygiene.

Let me elaborate on hosas comment, 5000 years ago after adam and eve were properly married and went to consumnate their marriage it was a good thing they were both heterosexual.

Originally Posted by Centurion1

I think what hosa is trying to say is, 5000 years ago after adam and eve were properly married and went to consumnate their marriage it was a good thing they were both heterosexual.

Hard to tell when it comes to fictional characters (as some see it). For all we know, Adam might have "been" with Eve just to procreate, while really he much preferred intercourse with, say, sheeps or pigs. Or maybe he was as gay as they get, just that he didn't have anyone to experiment with? All of humanity's sexual traits must have existed in Adam, as he was the very first male. So with that reasoning, he might as well have been with most things that move, as well as quite some immovable objects, if you look at the sexual diversity that exists today.

I don't remember the Bible being very specific about it.

I might very well be wrong though, has there been bible studies about it?

Originally Posted by Azathoth

Hygiene.

This comment is relevant how?

Is heterosexual intercourse clean and homosexual intercourse dirty? Afterall, in both cases, it can involve anal, and mouth contact to lower-body parts. So if it is that, it is merely a bigoted view which isn't respective of the facts.

Originally Posted by Beskar

This comment is relevant how?

Is heterosexual intercourse clean and homosexual intercourse dirty? Afterall, in both cases, it can involve anal, and mouth contact to lower-body parts. So if it is that, it is merely a bigoted view which isn't respective of the facts.

What he said.

Bad style Azathoth.

Also very little relevance to the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Well, it certainly should not be used as an argument "for" homosexuality. But it probably illustrates that there does not seem to be actual justification for not allowing gay people to have/adopt children.
Why apply different standards to homosexual people? There are obviously enough heterosexual people who are not most suitable to raise children, yet it goes without saying that it is part of their personal freedom to have children.
With regard to adoption - just apply the same standards to all potential parents - regardless of their sexuality. If there is no proof that homosexual parents have a negative effect on the development of a child, it should not be a criteria for the decision.

Well, all you have to do is raise the bar and demonstrate that heterosexual couples are even "better" at raising children provided they are in a stable and functional relationship. This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc. (I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

Then you just say that marriage promotes stable hetero relationships and you've created a situationw where you brand everyone but your chosen group as sub-standard parents. It's called manipulating data, and I think this study has tried to do it already; just in a different direction.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Actually, in the past, everyone was just like rabbits. They would simply enter any hole they came across.

So to suggest they were actually heterosexual is incorrect. They were simply "sexual".

heterosexuality and homosexuality are merely social constructs, in reality, they don't actually exist. While there is a biological preference for males and females coupling due to reproduction, there isn't really much else there.

This isn't remotely true, every written-historical society placed boundaries on sexuality, and we have no idea what pre-historical societies did.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, all you have to do is raise the bar and demonstrate that heterosexual couples are even "better" at raising children provided they are in a stable and functional relationship. This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc. (I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

Then you just say that marriage promotes stable hetero relationships and you've created a situationw where you brand everyone but your chosen group as sub-standard parents. It's called manipulating data, and I think this study has tried to do it already; just in a different direction.

And would you then use this to argue that heteros who are not in a stable relationship should not be allowed to have/raise children?

Because that is the point that I was trying to make. While you can argue that the study is flawed and does not prove that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexual parents, I think you will have some difficulties to deny that homosexual couples are at least as suitable as parents a many heterosexual couples (or singly parents) who we would consider to deny them their right to have children.

You would seriously comment on my statement kadagar

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This isn't remotely true, every written-historical society placed boundaries on sexuality, and we have no idea what pre-historical societies did.

I apologise, the men of ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were devote christians who never touched another person, unless it is consumating through marriage.

Or the facts, where they intercourse with everyone, male and female, almost constantly. Homosexuality only became taboo through the institutionalisation of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. Even then, everyone didn't become virtious. I believe even Gibbsons commented on the examples of Christians in Libya, compared with a Pagan sect.

Originally Posted by Beskar

I apologise, the men of ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were devote christians who never touched another person, unless it is consumating through marriage.

Or the facts, where they intercourse with everyone, male and female, almost constantly. Homosexuality only became taboo through the institutionalisation of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. Even then, everyone didn't become virtious. I believe even Gibbsons commented on the examples of Christians in Libya, compared with a Pagan sect.

Doesn't fit the facts, Beskar. The Lex Scantinia specifically criminalized sexual interactions between free persons of the same sex, allowing for the death penalty. Military regulations specifically prohibited it and soldiers were executed for same. A number of Attic Greek city-states allowed or encouraged it, but several Ionian Greek city-states proscribed it. Ancient Egypt is more difficult (too few records) but what appears indicates that it was viewed in a rather mixed fashion. Some references seem to laud the behavior, others take pride in having avoided it.

Homosexuality seems to be more broadly accepted by "mature" (some would say fading or decadent) cultures, whereas it is often viewed negatively in developing cultures. No one answer is 100% on track.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Doesn't fit the facts, Beskar. The Lex Scantinia specifically criminalized sexual interactions between free persons of the same sex, allowing for the death penalty.

It didn't apply to slaves though, so a Master could have his way with his male pretty boy slaves (Which existed). That was also decipted in the HBO series of Rome.

But yes, it was rather hit and miss depending on who and where, but since i am presuming our early ancestors come from "Animals", they would share the same hedonistic traits, as in, they pretty much mated with everyone and everything, such as demonstrated by pets such as dogs and cats. I am arguing that defined heterosexuality and homosexuality came later on.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This probably wouldn't be hard to prove, as the children of a homosexual couple will have more difficulty fitting in at school etc.

There is some circular logic going on in this statement.

The children of a homosexual couple will only have trouble fitting into a school full of children who have been taught, either directly or indirectly, that homosexuality is somehow wrong. Does the issue lie with the homosexual couple or the dimwits who instill intolerance in their children?

(I'd also like to see how a girl raised by two women deals with men in a social/socio-sexual way, but that's another topic).

And what of a girl raised by one woman?