Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, rebel has the idea everyone that doesn't think like he/she thinks is a Homosexual.
Apparently so! They have now mistaken at least three of us for homosexuals, perhaps even more... funny how that happens in these discussions.
Not that it matters anyway, since one doesn't have to be gay to support their rights as humans. Humanity and freedom, concepts that obviously escape some people.
I don't care who you are, as long as you propate homosezual agenda you are the enemy of morality.
LMAO. Obviously you have a different concept of morality than I do, since to me MORAL means to love and accept all people as equals. Thankfully I wasn't raised to think moral = bigoted and narrow-minded, as that seems incredibly backwards to me.
P.S. Stop trying to backpeddle, when you clearly said I "wasn't part of the healthy (procreative) crowd." I am a healthy and fertile 35 year-old straight woman, so even if you disagree with my beliefs, I am perfectly capable of producing a child. I am in a heterosexual relationship, an for all you know, I already have a few biological children at home.
Quote:
As far as inferitle people adopting children it is absolutely OK.
We are not talking about a whole group of people who chose to be infertle by engaging in homosexual acts.
Oh, so you admit these rules have nothing to do with nature or science - but rather they're just abstract ideas, and designations based on your personal opinion? Cool, thanks. That's what I thought!! Now go ahead and keep thinking whatever you want, but thankfully our laws aren't based on "rebel 12's" opinion or biased thoughts.
These government sources are infiltrated by biased gays as well.
Does that tin foil hat get sweaty in the summer?
Quote:
I don't care what you say, if you chose to be gay and do not procreate don't ecpect to raise children
Actually, a more honest and factual statement would be the following: I don't care what you say or believe, the laws still support gays adopting and/or creating children of their own. While a few states still ban gay people from adopting (which is easy to bypass), I don't think any states have laws against them raising or creating a child - so you can bellyache and cry about it all you want, but it won't change these facts as they exist. Many many gay people, both single and coupled, are currently raising their children without government interference. Do you deny that?
Besides, even if laws regarding adoption and/or surrogacy were passed, most homosexuals are still physically capable of producing children. I know a few lesbians and gay men who've "done the deed" with the opposite sex, and a child resulted from said union. Are you saying their biological children should be taken from them, since they don't have the intention of being in a breeder-worthy relationship?
2. The facts do not lie. If homosexuals are at least as good at raising children as heterosexuals (and they are) and at most better than heterosexuals at it, this suggests that if one group of people should get to raise them... it should be the gays. After all, as you pointed out, they have a bit more free time on their hands than heteros, because they don't have to worry about actually having the children.
Again, I've combined your totally made-up theory about "mother nature" with my own factual evidence.
Since they are both equal in how well they raise children (some studies have suggested homosexuals are actually better at it, on average), and only the heterosexuals can reproduce, it makes sense that the homosexuals should get to raise them while the heteros busy themselves with reproducing more. Just think of how efficiently we could secure the survival of our species, with the gays raising the children so the heteros can focus all their efforts on doing what they do best - the only thing they do best, evidently - reproducing
I mean, c'mon, are you wanting to make "survival of the species" a priority or not? It doesn't sound like you are...
That's funny because in EVERY case when asked why they are against same sex relationships they say because the BIBLE says is is wrong.
Not "EVERY" case.
In my OP on the other thread (about defending marriage between a man & a woman) I didn't once even mention the bible.
As people see the medical, psychological & social consequences of homosexuality through statistics, stories, personal experiences etc., they realize it's COMMON SENSE that pushing homosexuality is not in society's best interest.
LMAO. Obviously you have a different concept of morality than I do, since to me MORAL means to love and accept all people as equals. Thankfully I wasn't raised to think moral = bigoted and narrow-minded, as that seems incredibly backwards to me.
That's very naive concept of morality, do you also love rapist and child molesters? Do you also treat them aqual?
Morality doesn't have anything to do with love, in it's most basic, natural form it's a set of values that are conducive to success of human kind as a species.
As people see the medical, psychological & social consequences of homosexuality through statistics, stories, personal experiences etc., they realize it's COMMON SENSE that pushing homosexuality is not in society's best interest.
What "statistics" are there to suggest homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children?
These "stories of personal experiences" (that's one thing, not two) can be and have been countered many times. All it takes is someone to come along with ANOTHER story to contradict those implying there's something inherently wrong with homosexuals raising a child.
As of yet, there are no medical, psychological, or social consequences of homosexuality in and of itself to speak of. Prove me wrong.
What "statistics" are there to suggest homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children?
These "stories of personal experiences" (that's one thing, not two) can be and have been countered many times. All it takes is someone to come along with ANOTHER story to contradict those implying there's something inherently wrong with homosexuals raising a child.
As of yet, there are no medical, psychological, or social consequences of homosexuality in and of itself to speak of. Prove me wrong.
No statistics just a few thousand years of tradition.
No statistics just a few thousand years of tradition.
again, marriage has been changing "tradition" , that you conveniently ignore.
It wasn't more than 30 years ago, that the last state in the United States finally abolished their "no interracial marriages are allowed" law. It was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman, or an Asian man marrying a white woman.
So, stop clinging to this "preservation" of tradition, because its apparent to all of us non-bigots that you don't know the history of marriage.
(to rebel12) again, marriage has been changing "tradition" , that you conveniently ignore.
It wasn't more than 30 years ago, that the last state in the United States finally abolished their "no interracial marriages are allowed" law. It was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman, or an Asian man marrying a white woman.
So, stop clinging to this "preservation" of tradition, because its apparent to all of us non-bigots that you don't know the history of marriage.
Exactly, and it's making a prejudice against homosexuals all the more obvious. If it were tradition that motivated them, they'd be every bit as opposed to interracial marriage as they are to gay marriage. But they're not.
So no, it can't be blamed on "tradition" any more than it can be blamed on "God". This is their very own prejudice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
