Originally posted by Scarpa
No they shouldnt. Why does everybody always whine about gay rights I dont give a # $&^ either way
so you not giving a "# $&^" about gay rights is exactly your point: it's "# $&^". But unfortunatly for you, there ARE people that want them to have rights as anyone else
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I grew up with one parent. I grew up surrounded by females that warent only my mother, and i was never confused as to who i called my parents.Children have the shitty attitude - but thats because they are uneducated on that field. Parents who have such attitude have it because they are ignorant hill billies that make the rest look bad.
You would rather give a kid into an abusive hetrosexual family than a loving homosexual - oh yeah, im sure the kid would be so greatful!
no, but there are a few reasons not to
1) statistically, children grow up to immitate their parents believes/behaviors. So, this is increasing the "population" of gays. If you're fine with that, then that's your opinion. I on the otherhand dont think so. For one thing, the more gays there are, the less # of births.... are we trying to stop our race from continueing?
2) its unnatural. I mean, yeah, you can claim being gay is a natural thing (i dont think so, but that's not the arguement here) but it is IMPOSSIBLE for two guys or two girls to actually have a kid. Its nature's (or God's, or whoever you want to claim) way of saying that they shouldn't have kids.
1) if that is true, then they would take over habbits, political views, lifestyle and so forth
it doesn't take long to realise this is wrong:
how many guys/girls that are gay come from a heterosexual couple? according to those "statistics", that wouldn't happen then
statistics are great to toy around with, but never proof something
2) it's not unnatural, you say it is and make of that they are not "allowed" to have kids
if it's unnatural, then it doesn't happen in the nature, but hey, it does
Originally posted by Kontraz
no, but there are a few reasons not to1) statistically, children grow up to immitate their parents believes/behaviors. So, this is increasing the "population" of gays. If you're fine with that, then that's your opinion. I on the otherhand dont think so. For one thing, the more gays there are, the less # of births.... are we trying to stop our race from continueing?
1 - Just like we usually don't enforce heterosexuality on our children, homosexuality would not be enforced on them. Plus, it's not chosen.
2 - Increasing the population of gays... do YOU have a problem with that? Your kid could be gay.
3 - If we stop the human race from continuing, which won;t happen, we will save earth. Go us. 😖
Originally posted by Kontraz
2) its unnatural. I mean, yeah, you can claim being gay is a natural thing (i dont think so, but that's not the arguement here) but it is IMPOSSIBLE for two guys or two girls to actually have a kid. Its nature's (or God's, or whoever you want to claim) way of saying that they shouldn't have kids.
4 - Unnatural? Please: (The following quoted from Adam PoE)
Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it…
is present in or faithfully represents nature or life.
is a phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.
conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.
Illustrating that homosexuality is natural is the fact that it extensively occurs in nature; Homosexuality has been documented in over 190 species and can be observed in nearly all sexually reproducing organisms, the exception being bacteria.
Studies of human sexuality indicate that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable, and current research suggests that sexual orientation is in place before birth and is caused by genetic and biological factors:
In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institute, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.
Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.
In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.
A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.
This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.
A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.
They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.
This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.
Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.
More recently, Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.
Furthermore, there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.
Consider for a moment that almost all gay men and lesbians have grown up in a heterosexual world, with very little exposure to homosexuality. The overwhelming majority of gay men and lesbians were raised by heterosexual parents, educated by heterosexual teachers, and socialized with heterosexual siblings and friends. They were surrounded by heterosexism in magazines, books, movies and on television, yet they grew up to be gay.
To prove that homosexuality is not natural, you must show that a.) it is not a phenomenon that occurs in the material world or b.) that it is a phenomenon that occurs in the material world but is itself artificial.
Originally posted by Kontraz
no, but there are a few reasons not to1) statistically, children grow up to immitate their parents believes/behaviors. So, this is increasing the "population" of gays. If you're fine with that, then that's your opinion. I on the otherhand dont think so. For one thing, the more gays there are, the less # of births.... are we trying to stop our race from continueing?
2) its unnatural. I mean, yeah, you can claim being gay is a natural thing (i dont think so, but that's not the arguement here) but it is IMPOSSIBLE for two guys or two girls to actually have a kid. Its nature's (or God's, or whoever you want to claim) way of saying that they shouldn't have kids.
1) I grew up around no other gay people, but I turned out gay. I always knew I was, even before I knew what gay meant. I'm also not Roman Catholic. I do not vote republican. I don't have an overwhelming southern accent. Also, I appreciate stylish footwear. I'm nothing like my parents. Most people I know are nothing like their parents. So, by that argument, more gay people should raise children. That way there will be more straight people to propogate your species.
2) Does this argument apply to women who can't have children? Or sterile men? As long as their straight, right?
Originally posted by Kontraz2) its unnatural. I mean, yeah, you can claim being gay is a natural thing (i dont think so, but that's not the arguement here) but it is IMPOSSIBLE for two guys or two girls to actually have a kid. Its nature's (or God's, or whoever you want to claim) way of saying that they shouldn't have kids.
Exactly! ✅
We should also be walking around naked because god created us that way, and we shouldn't drive because god gave us legs to walk, and we shouldn't fly either because god didn't give us wings.
The point of my sarcastic rant: Humans have evolved intellectually to the point where we can overcome most of what is "natural".
However, I believe being gay is natural. There is no intentional human intervention during pregnancy that creates a gay child.
Put down your bibles and open a science book for Christs sake! 🙄
Originally posted by Tex
Exactly! ✅We should also be walking around naked because god created us that way, and we shouldn't drive because god gave us legs to walk, and we shouldn't fly either because god didn't give us wings.
The point of my sarcastic rant: Humans have evolved intellectually to the point where we can overcome most of what is "natural".
However, I believe being gay is natural. There is no intentional human intervention during pregnancy that creates a gay child.
Put down your bibles and open a science book for Christs sake! 🙄
lol, im on my winter break.... (im majoring in polymer science) no more science for me for right now!
and yes, being gay is natural to some degree, but gays having kids isnt. a
nd when it comes to god, Well, in genesis, after we realized we were nude, we made clothes for ourselves. There is nothing wrong with driving a car. Its simply an advancement. But when God says that being gay is wrong, and it is unnatural for gays to have children, i can't condone allowing gays to adopt.
EDIT: and about sterile men and women. Its also unnatural for one to be both sterile AND have kids. I dont think they should adopt either 😛
Originally posted by Kontraz
EDIT: and about sterile men and women. Its also unnatural for one to be both sterile AND have kids. I dont think they should adopt either 😛
So, should we just start burning all those babies waiting to be adopted? Or, maybe medical experiments for the lot of them? Who's going to adopt babies if they shouoldn't be allowed to adopt babies either? Maybe we could build cars that run on dead babies, that way the gay adoption/incapable couples/abortion debate can be brought to an end.
Gays do adopt children. Deal with it. Like I said, my cousin and his partner adopted two kids and those two kids now have the best dad's in the world. They are super cool dads, they are well off financially, they live in San Diego, which has a huge gay and straight population. It's perfectly fine.
And remember, the Bible is just some book translated and manipulated to the point where it really is just a tool to control people. I'm sure it's a great read, though. But so is Harry Potter, and that sh*t really happened!
Originally posted by The Tired Hiker
Gays do adopt children. Deal with it. Like I said, my cousin and his partner adopted two kids and those two kids now have the best dad's in the world. They are super cool dads, they are well off financially, they live in San Diego, which has a huge gay and straight population. It's perfectly fine.And remember, the Bible is just some book translated and manipulated to the point where it really is just a tool to control people. I'm sure it's a great read, though. But so is Harry Potter, and that sh*t really happened!
you do realize that without control, people would be doomed to self-destruction, right?