Isn't Chick Fil A already in the city??? (schools, to move)

[Goinback2011]

Once you and your kind are gone the machine of progress and common sense will pulverize your bones into a fine powder to be used as fertilizer for the gardens of the future.

The 'machine of progress' is likely to lead to the wealthy being able to choose the characteristics of their children before they're born. Are they likely to desire to have homosexual children? No, they're not. Are they likely to want dogmatic, regligious thinking in their children? No, they're not. Both groups will only be born to poor saps who can't afford to genetically alter their progeny. That's assuming anyone but the rich and their servants are permitted to have progeny.

We're maybe 20 years away from this. Enjoy fighting with eachother.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Sounds like hate to me! LOL!

It's funny these people that proclaim all of this tolerance are the most intolerant and indignant people around.

And yet you haven't lost your job, been harassed, beaten to a pulp, or murdered for being a moron.


Reminds me of people complaining about "The War Against christmas/christians/whitepeople/the affluent/etc"

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The 'machine of progress' is likely to lead to the wealthy being able to choose the characteristics of their children before they're born. Are they likely to desire to have homosexual children? No, they're not. Are they likely to want dogmatic, regligious thinking in their children? No, they're not. Both groups will only be born to poor saps who can't afford to genetically alter their progeny. That's assuming anyone but the rich and their servants are permitted to have progeny.

We're maybe 20 years away from this. Enjoy fighting with eachother.

The thought of genetically engineered children makes me sick. Fashion babies?

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

What I was saying was that without children, society does not continue. You need a man and woman to have a child and just about every culture in the world from the dawn of time, has had marriage as an institution to bind a man and woman together to provide an environment for a child to be raised. Two gay men invading each others digestive tract or two lesbian women grinding up on one another does not produce a child. Those are the facts of the world.

I'm trying to figure out where you are going with this, and it leaves me scratching my head.

Are you under the assumption that society will not continue if there are gay people in it? Surely, you understand that there will always be heterosexual couples in the world to make children, even if there are also homosexual couples? Maybe you are like my parents, and believe that homosexuals are out there recruiting straight people to join them and give up their heterosexuality. My parents actually believed I was "converted" by crazy homos on the internet.

Or are you under the assumption that gay society cannot continue, since gay couples cannot give birth to a child? Obviously, gays continue to be born to straight parents!

Perhaps you are arguing the validity of gay relationships, since they do not naturally produce children. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who do not produce children.

[Pitts10yrs]

Genetic diversity works both for the good and bad, in that it creates a variety of offspring some of which will survive in a changing environment and others that will not. Homosexuality is one of those diverse abnormal oddities in the human gene pool. You certainly can not have a society filled with homosexuals since they would soon die out, and so it is easy to understand the small percentage of homosexuals. You can not say homosexuality is an illness, because they are healthy individuals. I guess it's a matter of what you as a person or society wants to tolerate.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

it is some how anti gay, when in reality it is pro family.

These efforts are anti gay families, which is actually anti family.

Again, the notion that somehow the existence of gay families takes away from other families makes no sense, so you can't really claim that being against gay families makes you pro other sorts of families.

[gg]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

These efforts are anti gay families, which is actually anti family.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way for men. I suppose a women can get a donor, which of course comes from a man. You may want to rethink your.... well whatever you are trying to say.

This thread is a hoot. Thanks Love2Golf. We all fell for it hook line AND sinker.

[Mtl-Cns]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way for men. I suppose a women can get a donor, which of course comes from a man. You may want to rethink your.... well whatever you are trying to say.

This thread is a hoot. Thanks Love2Golf. We all fell for it hook line AND sinker.

I hate to belabor the obvious here but are you implying that adoption is not an option, or that families who consist of adopted children, be they a heterosexual or homosexual couple, or a single parent, do not constitute a "real" family?

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by Mtl-Cns

I hate to belabor the obvious here but are you implying that adoption is not an option, or that families who consist of adopted children, be they a heterosexual or homosexual couple, or a single parent, do not constitute a "real" family?

Surrogates too, 'n at.

[gg]

Originally Posted by Mtl-Cns

I hate to belabor the obvious here but are you implying that adoption is not an option, or that families who consist of adopted children, be they a heterosexual or homosexual couple, or a single parent, do not constitute a "real" family?

Well of course you can adopt from a heterosexual couple. I mean gays can't have kids, unless assisted by the opposite sex, so don't get too all high and mighty. I didn't make those rules. Single people can adopt as well. Just saying you can't have kids without the opposite sex. A family can be you and a cat or dog. Whatever.