NationStates Jolt Archive

No, the Catholics were first because I said so.

Catholics were first christians, thats what I was saying.
Im not stupid.

Im a Catholic, the first kind.

You know that's provably wrong, yes?

Again, being gay isnt bad, doing it is.Says your religious moral code. Mine says it's perfectly fine. Even more to the point of this particular thread, research says gay people make just as good parents as straights. And that can't be bad in anyone's book. Anyways, I gave scientific evidence earlier, how about gay never reproduces as necessary for het srvival of the species.Here's a news-flash then:
1) not only are gay people capable of reproduction, they do so fairly often
2) "gay" reproduces itself naturally in the heterosexual population, and
3) you have a piss-poor understanding of evolutionary concepts. Even were it as simple as survival of the species=having babies, you would still be wrong. I find it intriguing that you can argue that Homo sapiens is somehow separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, yet depend heavily on one of the tenets of that science to prop up your religious-based moral code.

I said some of the things the bible says are misconstrued do to time gap, the message is the same. read the idea, not how it was presented.Hon, this is a text-based medium. How you present your idea is the only thing we have to go on. The passage you wrote (that I quoted) was quite clear that you dismissed portions of the Bible because they no longer fit the times.

So if I find verses that say otherwise, will you admit you don't know what you're talking about?
but what would be the fun in that?:p

Catholics were first christians, thats what I was saying.
Im not stupid.

They were not, in fact the first Christians. Have you even read the Bible?

Amusing. There are benefits to the species outside of reproduction. There is much to indicate that homosexuality has species advantages. For one, there is evidence of male homosexuality occurring more frequently in later children in families with multiple male children. This has the advantage of having the later males supporting their older brothers rather than competing with them, thus encouraging the passing on of their genes. More protectors for the children. More providers. Genetic advantage. Secondly, there is evidence that the same genes that promote homosexuality in men, promote fertility in women. Thus, the homosexual man would be in a position to provide for and support the children of his sister.

You oversimplify species advantage in your argument. Your conclusions are not supported by your arguments, your arguments are unsupported by fact.

And you overcomplicate yours.

You know that's provably wrong, yes?
ahh...good...I wasn't making it up. I could have sworn that the first modern church was the Nestorian branch...

Well, you are saying that laws should be passed based on your religious beliefs.

I wish that were so, but It's not my right to make laws like that, Now if I ever start my own country...

I got to page 3 and was too disgusted to move on.

The fact that this can even become a thriving topic with two sides is horrible, and a true testament to how ignorant and hateful people can be for no reason other than their own biased judgements.

Gay people are people. They can love. They can hate. They can teach, they can nurture.

Straight people are people. They can love. They can hate. They can teach, they can nurture.

There is no difference in the ability to raise a child. None. People are people, are people, are people.

You have no right to tell someone they're unfit to raise a child that has no parents unless you are willing to raise that child yourself. End of discussion.

I must ask...what is it you do for a living? If you don't want to reveal it hear, feel free to TG it to me, and if this question is out of place, feel free to ignore it:)

TG :)

ah, I know (or I believe I do based on what I have read in scripture and what I believe it to mean)

I have read the entire Bible through about 20 times, in depth going back to the original languages, studying the history of the time ect. I find many verses on the sanctity of life, that you are created for a purpose, ect. but nothing about sex only being for the creating of life. If you don't create life, do you go to hell? I mean Abram and Sarai had a lot of sex for a while, and didn't have kids until he was over 100..........

Hmm, really, I find it hard to believe sex isn't explained in there but ok. And abram and Sarai were always open to children in sex. They never prevented it. Not saying that sex without children is bad, thats absurd, but you cannot limit the natural possibility. Yes old people can have sex even past childbearing age, its still open to children, not limiting the purpose and possibility.

And you overcomplicate yours.
actually, Jocabia's is fairly accurate. Humans are altruistic creatures...There is a reason we have the will to fight for our brothers, sisters, and parents more than any other family members. They carry 50% of our genetic information. We fight to help not only ourselves, but those we consider our kin. If I had two siblings, both of them having a child would have the same effect as me having my own child in terms of passing along genetics.

And you overcomplicate yours.

You mean I incorporate all evidence and not simplify to the point of absurdity? I'll take that as a compliment.

Now do you have any responsse to the actual argument or are you trolling?

And here's a verse from Paul.

1 Corinthians 7

3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

In other words, he suggests that the husband and wife not deny each other because it necessary to fulfill their passions in order to allow them to focus on God. It encourages sex for satisfaction.

Hmm, really, I find it hard to believe sex isn't explained in there but ok. And abram and Sarai were always open to children in sex. They never prevented it. Not saying that sex without children is bad, thats absurd, but you cannot limit the natural possibility. Yes old people can have sex even past childbearing age, its still open to children, not limiting the purpose and possibility.
you know I could so get into this whole deep theological debate with you, but it would hijack the thred, and then there is the fact that I am not sure you could really hold up your side of the debate. I find that I have tons of fun debating theology, while my opponents tend to get to a point where they either have to flame me, or they just disappear. I haven't figured out why that happens....

Ok I really can't find my bible(sad I know), Im still fairly certain it's in there though. Even if its not, that's the purpose of the church. The chruch, established by christ, was set here to guide his people in worchipping him.
Too bad corruption in the middlw ages and now those child molestors screwed over our public image. Anyways. Ive given my arguements, If I find my bible and find the verse Ill come back and post it. But I'm tired of arguing with people who read half the statement believe parts only they want to belive and argue unimportatn points. Yall arent listentinging to me and that's fine. Peace out, keep it real, And God loves you!

Ok I really can't find my bible(sad I know), Im still fairly certain it's in there though. Even if its not, that's the purpose of the church. The chruch, established by christ, was set here to guide his people in worchipping him.
Too bad corruption in the middlw ages and now those child molestors screwed over our public image. Anyways. Ive given my arguements, If I find my bible and find the verse Ill come back and post it. But I'm tired of arguing with people who read half the statement believe parts only they want to belive and argue unimportatn points. Yall arent listentinging to me and that's fine. Peace out, keep it real, And God loves you!
www.biblegateway.com

there you go......I am waiting.

you know I could so get into this whole deep theological debate with you, but it would hijack the thred, and then there is the fact that I am not sure you could really hold up your side of the debate. I find that I have tons of fun debating theology, while my opponents tend to get to a point where they either have to flame me, or they just disappear. I haven't figured out why that happens....

Seriously my last post. I enjoy theology debates, honsetly don't know If i could keep up my end, maybe, maybe not, catholic education for 12 years. But anyways yea, Later.

Ok I really can't find my bible(sad I know), Im still fairly certain it's in there though. Even if its not, that's the purpose of the church. The chruch, established by christ, was set here to guide his people in worchipping him.
Too bad corruption in the middlw ages and now those child molestors screwed over our public image. Anyways. Ive given my arguements, If I find my bible and find the verse Ill come back and post it. But I'm tired of arguing with people who read half the statement believe parts only they want to belive and argue unimportatn points. Yall arent listentinging to me and that's fine. Peace out, keep it real, And God loves you!
ironically, I debated you on a line-by-line basis, that you ignored in post 215 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11282233&postcount=215)

Exactly. I didn't pick to be white. I didn't pick to be from what, in world terms, would be called a fairly wealthy family. I didn't pick to be born in America.

What I did choose was to work my ass off in school. I did choose to be an English education major. I did choose to go to a very difficult school. And I choose to continue to work hard to do the best that I can...not because I want an A, but because I want to be the best teacher I can be.

I forget if it is from the bible or one of the philosophers, but they said that charity isn't truly charity unless it causes you to change how you live. A man who makes $5 a day who gives $1 is making much more of a sacrifice, and deserves more esteem than, say, a man who makes $500 a day and gives one.

Very true. And the pride you feel, is in what you do, and what you accomplish... not in how much it pays.

Seriously my last post. I enjoy theology debates, honsetly don't know If i could keep up my end, maybe, maybe not, catholic education for 12 years. But anyways yea, Later.

Based on what I know of her and you, you can't. You've said many provably wrong things already. Things that don't agree even with Catholic dogma, let alone the Bible.

Very true. And the pride you feel, is in what you do, and what you accomplish... not in how much it pays.
exactly. I'm proud of my work so far in school, and I'm paying to do that work. :)

1) I assume the anti gay crowd are hiding behind the bible again...what a surprise...So lets look shall we..Leviticus 18:22 "thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination" For the sake of clarity...how can a man lie with a man as with a woman....wouldn't the genital differences make it impossible anyway?...yeah I know it means doing it up the butt...I'm being facetious....No my biblical argument is this....Leviticus 12:6 (which refers to after a child is born)"and when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a younger pigeon or turtle for a sin: and shall deliver them to the preist."...And my point is this...when was the last time christian fundamentalists...who claim the bible is the unarguable truth of their God....when was the last time any of them made the mothers of their newborn children take animal sacrifices to the temple.....

And....
2)Why are gay people so unfit as parent figures....because what is it that every psycho and rapist and paedo and junkie and any other type of pervert and freak you can think of have in common.....yeah that's right they had at one point in their lives two heterosexual parents....

Homosexuals should not be allowed near children.

Someone else has probably mentioned this, by the time I type... I'm a number of pages behind...

Statistically - as a PROPORTION, child abuse is more prevalent among heterosexual parents, than it is among homosexual parents.

Note - this is proportion... that means equalising the numbers, heterosexuals offend more than homosexuals.

Should the argument, then, not be "HETEROSEXUALS should not be allowed near children"?

Ok I really can't find my bible(sad I know), Im still fairly certain it's in there though. Even if its not, that's the purpose of the church. The chruch, established by christ, was set here to guide his people in worchipping him.
Too bad corruption in the middlw ages and now those child molestors screwed over our public image. Anyways. Ive given my arguements, If I find my bible and find the verse Ill come back and post it. But I'm tired of arguing with people who read half the statement believe parts only they want to belive and argue unimportatn points. Yall arent listentinging to me and that's fine. Peace out, keep it real, And God loves you!

So now the purpose of the church is to decide what is and is not sinful? It's one thing to say that your god declared something sinful, and therefore it should not be allowed. (Although honestly, even that's far from perfect.) To say that your God's son created an establishment, and that that establishment says something is sinful, and therefore it should not be allowed?

Hahahahaha!

Ok try on this metaphor. You have legs, your normal ok? Your friend has no legs, he needs a wheelchair. You get to walk up and down stairs all you want (oh joy!) He can't, he needs something to help him get up those stairs to his destination. Does the fact that your friend has no legs make him any lesser of a being than you? No, but he has a handicap, sucks, not his fault but hes gotta deal with it. Lets say heterosexuality is like legs and that bi and homo is like not having legs. Let's say the top fot he stairs is like a normal relationship, helathy, brings about children, allows you to go to heaven. (no doesnt mean you cant go to heaven if your gay ill explain) You can walk up those stairs on your normal legs, where your friends needs help to get up them (therapy and understanding that homosexual urges are unnatural). If your friend accepts that he is handicapped and is willing to work on the fact that he can't reach the top without some help, he can turn and ask you. You help him up the stairs (either his sexuality is reversed back to normal or he understands that he is stuck with a life of celibacy) He gets there and everyone is happy. Being gay, more often than not is completely outside your control, you have to accept that it's not normal, that you have to resist homosexual desires as they have no good end.

An ideal life is one in which every action has a goal for something good.

Celibacy is not natural. Amazing that that slipped through your 'logic' shield.

you may not choose whom you are attracted to, but you can choose who to love, love isn't an emotion but a commitment.

People seem to confuse love and attraction a lot these days.

I disagree.

Love is very much an emotion, and it isn't one we can switch on or off.

Unles you are messing around in agape/eros territory...

www.biblegateway.com

there you go......I am waiting.

Ok I doubt you'll see what Im saying but here.

{The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. }
This means you cannot hold back any part of yourself in sex. You should give fully each time, no contraception.

{5(B)Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that (C)Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. }
Means that its ok to abstain for a while, ever heard of NFP, natural family planning, If you cannot handle the burden of children, it is ok to abstaind but you sohuld join in sex after a time so as to not be tempted by other women or men.

This is not a perfect example of what Im trying to say but it is connected, Ill look some more.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=49&context=chapter

{The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. }

This means you cannot hold back any part of yourself in sex. You should give fully each time, no contraception.

Eeehm.. I do not see that. If the woman tells the man: use a condom, where is the violation of this verse ?

Ok I doubt you'll see what Im saying but here.

{The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. }
This means you cannot hold back any part of yourself in sex. You should give fully each time, no contraception.

{5(B)Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that (C)Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. }
Means that its ok to abstain for a while, ever heard of NFP, natural family planning, If you cannot handle the burden of children, it is ok to abstaind but you sohuld join in sex after a time so as to not be tempted by other women or men.

This is not a perfect example of what Im trying to say but it is connected, Ill look some more.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=49&context=chapter

Do you not understand what that says? It's the same one I quoted. Paul said you may abstain to pray. He says NOTHING about children in that passage and that passage in context and out of context is about giving in to lust to keep it from causing you to cheat on each other. He is talking about lust. That is the entire point of the passage. Please point to where it mentions procreation. It does not mention it. Seriously, are you a puppet just pretending, because you just ruined your own argument. I can't believe your reading comprehension is this poor.

Eeehm.. I do not see that. If the woman tells the man: use a condom, where is the violation of this verse ?
The verse is talking about having sex to prevent lust from causing them to stray. What does that have to do with procreation? There is no mention of it and it is clearly not the specific purpose that Paul is giving for these couples to have sex. It specifically says that when ever one or the other is horny that they should engage in sex.

Im a Catholic, the first kind.

The first kind of Catholic? So - no preset scripture, and vacillating about the human/divine nature of Jesus?

I disagree.

Love is very much an emotion, and it isn't one we can switch on or off.

Unles you are messing around in agape/eros territory...
ah, we are a little off topic are we not?

Love is not an emotion, or your love for your children would be conditional, attraction, infatuation, ect. these can all be emotions, but love in it's purest sense is a decision, a consious choice, a commitment.

ah, we are a little off topic are we not?

Love is not an emotion, or your love for your children would be conditional, attraction, infatuation, ect. these can all be emotions, but love in it's purest sense is a decision, a consious choice, a commitment.

Not really. If you ask someone why they love someone, they can give you a list of reasons like what they look like and how they act, but it really just comes down to a feeling they have. If there's no feeling, no "spark", then there's no love.

you know I could so get into this whole deep theological debate with you, but it would hijack the thred, and then there is the fact that I am not sure you could really hold up your side of the debate. I find that I have tons of fun debating theology, while my opponents tend to get to a point where they either have to flame me, or they just disappear. I haven't figured out why that happens....

Ah... I do so love watching the fair Smunkee spank people... :eek:

Ok I doubt you'll see what Im saying but here.

{The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. }
This means you cannot hold back any part of yourself in sex. You should give fully each time, no contraception.

{5(B)Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that (C)Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. }
Means that its ok to abstain for a while, ever heard of NFP, natural family planning, If you cannot handle the burden of children, it is ok to abstaind but you sohuld join in sex after a time so as to not be tempted by other women or men.

This is not a perfect example of what Im trying to say but it is connected, Ill look some more.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=49&context=chapter

Either partner can give of him, or her, self, entirely... without the need for semen to move from one vessel to another.

Onan's sin wasn't busting a loaf on the bedsprings... it was refusing to impregnate his dead-brother's-wife. And - the reason wasn't because of 'waste'... but because he refused a direct commandment.

As Jocabia points out - Paul is very clear that it is better to marry, than to burn. Lust MUST be indulged, and - to sanctify it, one must wed.

Lust is NOT discouraged... sex for the sake of sex is still a blessed gift. But it IS asked that it be sanctified by matrimony.

You think the world is about you doing what you want to make you happy don't you.
There is a God, desire does create, the intangiblie things are often the most powerful, for example, love has more force behind peoples actions than any other one thing in the world, it has even overcome the will to survive numerous times. As for polygamy, they had the concept of husband and wife, but with a male dominant culture, men got greedy (lust) and took several wives. The core concept of man finds woman to make baby has always always always been around, even in the animal kingdom. Any species, the male looks for female and the female looks for male so they can get together and make baby. Now not all species have a father that hang around, but many do. But animals are animals, not people, that fact that we are so different from animals is an important part of being human.
Make babies, yes. Raise babies, no. We are talking about raising children, not creating them.

Banning single mothers? You reallly think sarcasm is a win-all don't you. Single mothers are heros doing the best they can in a wolrd that has given them circumstances they shouldn't be in. How about guys stop fucking girls and leaving them to struggle with a lifelong responsibility of raising a child without a father figure. Guess what, as single parenting increses, so it seems that crime rate does and a variety of societal (not sure societal is a word but you get the point) problems. The basic fallin apart of society can be mostly blamed on bad parents and bad family settings. If a child is never shown what's good and normal (thats a very difficult term to use) how can we expect him to be taht way? If the child doesnt understand that man needs woman and that woman needs man do you think that women will ever be treated equally, or that society's image of man will ever be accurate? Now im not saying someone raised in a bad family can't be a good person it can hapen, but theh are severely handicapped in becoming good people wihtout a model of what is good and natural for humanity.
You think the world gave them those circumstances? With the rare exceptiong of mothers who got pregnant at a result of rape, those women and girls were involved in the creation of that kid, too.

Single parents are heros, yes. But it is sexist to say it is all the fault of men, as tho women are powerless. We aren't.

And what are you talking about, as pregnancy rates increase, so does crime?
In 2000, 83.6 in 1,000 women aged 15-19 became pregnant-a 28% decline from 1990, when the teenage pregnancy rate reached a high of 116.9 per 1,000 women. Declines also took place among all racial and ethnic groups and in every state in 2000, according to new data from The Alan Guttmacher Institute. The teenage birth and abortion rates also declined between 1990 and 2000. (Pregnancies are calculated as the sum of births, miscarriages (including stillbirths) and abortions.) http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html For the full results of the study, see http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf

Violent crime rates declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004. To see chart go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Teen pregnancy and crime have both been decreasing, not increasing. And I am not convinced you could show the two are related, anyway.

Your arguments that homosexual couples raising children will cause continued inequality between men and women seems baseless and absurd. What do you think an accurate image of a man is? My image is a person with a penis, who's DNA contains a Y chromosone. Thats about it. Men are not all identical, or even similar. If society has just one image about who or what a man is, I can tell you right now that image will be wrong.

Either partner can give of him, or her, self, entirely... without the need for semen to move from one vessel to another.

Onan's sin wasn't busting a loaf on the bedsprings... it was refusing to impregnate his dead-brother's-wife. And - the reason wasn't because of 'waste'... but because he refused a direct commandment.

As Jocabia points out - Paul is very clear that it is better to marry, than to burn. Lust MUST be indulged, and - to sanctify it, one must wed.

Lust is NOT discouraged... sex for the sake of sex is still a blessed gift. But it IS asked that it be sanctified by matrimony.

So following that logic, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, Christians are committing a sin by not letting them sanctify their love and lust for eachother.

ah, we are a little off topic are we not?

Love is not an emotion, or your love for your children would be conditional, attraction, infatuation, ect. these can all be emotions, but love in it's purest sense is a decision, a consious choice, a commitment.

Not all parents DO love their children. And those that DO not, cannot be forced to do so.

One can 'grow to love' another - but that is not inconsistent with emotion.

You seem to be saying 'love' when you mean something else... 'tolerance', perhaps? Which is why I mention the agape/eros divide.

I love all people... but I do not love them all in the same way. But, I 'choose' to love no one. It is not a choice I know how to make.

I just thought of something.
What happends in a homosexual family when it's time for...
THE "TALK"!!!?!?:D

Why? What difference does it make to you? Is your hold on your sexuality so tenuous that people of a different sexuality are a threat to you?

1. Of course, its morally wrong.

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.

3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?

So following that logic, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, Christians are committing a sin by not letting them sanctify their love and lust for eachother.

It sounds right, doesn't it?

1. Of course, its morally wrong.

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags. <---[Epithets decrease influence, reputation]

3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?
Yay!...ish.

1. Of course, its morally wrong.

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.

3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?
1. Morals are subjective. Try again
2. It is seen in nearly all animal populations, lending truth to it being "natural", as it appears in nature.
The roman empire was killed by alot of things. One of those was not homosexuality. More like invasions from barbarian hordes.
3. You mean the child who has two loving parents? Oh yes, that poor, poor child. Who would want two parents who love them?:rolleyes:

I just thought of something.
What happends in a homosexual family when it's time for...
THE "TALK"!!!?!?:D
same thing that happens in any other family, you don't think that homosexuals aren't aware of reproductive sex do you? it's not like the kids need a demo or anything........:rolleyes:

1. Of course, its morally wrong.

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.

3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?

Why don't we ask the children in the orphanages if they prefer two loving parents of the same gender to living with none at all? Who are you to decide?

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?
Homosexuality is genetic. Having homosexual parents does not increase a chance of a child being homosexual.

same thing that happens in any other family, you don't think that homosexuals aren't aware of reproductive sex do you? it's not like the kids need a demo or anything........:rolleyes:
Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?

So following that logic, by not allowing homosexuals to marry, Christians are committing a sin by not letting them sanctify their love and lust for eachother.
It is sort of circular.

In Catholicism, sex IS the marriage. The priest does not marry the couple, the two marry each other. A sacrament is a physical act that brings about the grace and presence of God. Until the couple have intercourse, they aren't married.

A gay couple can't really have vaginal intercourse, and thus, the arguement goes, they cannot be married. (The Churchs argument, not mine).

Why are we talking about what Paul said and meant, anyway? He also said "wives be submissive to your husbands." pssshh. forget that.

Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?
Jesus...

Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?
Then the parent explains it. Is that really so difficult?

Why are we talking about what Paul said and meant, anyway? He also said "wives be submissive to your husbands." pssshh. forget that.
Yeah...everyone knows women rule the world...That's gotta be a non-literal part of the Bible.

1. Of course, its morally wrong.


MAybe by your 'moral' code... but that doesn't seem very 'moral' to me.


2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.


What killed the Roman empire was a combination of over-expansion, a weak centre, an attempt by the regime to 'placate' the people, rather than fix the empire... and a number of paranoid leaders who refused to allow power to their subordinates to save the empire, for fear they would use it against them.


3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?

Sure. Got to be better than the child with one parent. Or none.

Yeah...everyone knows women rule the world...That's gotta be a non-literal part of the Bible.
Either the bible is literal, or it isn't. There isn't really a "pick and choose" option, despite what many people would seem to like.

1. Morals are subjective. Try again
2. It is seen in nearly all animal populations, lending truth to it being "natural", as it appears in nature.
The roman empire was killed by alot of things. One of those was not homosexuality. More like invasions from barbarian hordes.
3. You mean the child who has two loving parents? Oh yes, that poor, poor child. Who would want two parents who love them?:rolleyes:

1. Very well, morals are subjective. I'm not one of those people who forces my beliefs on others.
2. Another nature vs. nuture debate, what do you think the child will think when he visits his friends house, who have a mother and father, then he goes home to find just his two fathers. A bit out of the norm, eh?
3.Yeah, that child, which probably already has enough problems, gets dumped with two homosexuals, which can make the same mistakes as hetero parents do(abuse, sexual or physical, emotional etc.) Who knows, the parents may be very loving, but who's to say they would be? And considering they are gay, the lifestyle and culture they bring into that child's life could cause problems later on.(i.e. bullying, depression)

I don't care what gay people do in their own homes(i don't agree with homosexuality), but when you bring an innocent child into it, thats where the line has been crossed.

Either the bible is literal, or it isn't. There isn't really a "pick and choose" option, despite what many people would seem to like.
Like you'd know. Genesis is non-literal. Revelations is symbolic. And what about parables? Those never happened. They're stories.

Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?
Or how about:
Parent: When two people love each other very much, sometimes they wanna show that love.
Kid: Like by kissing?
Parent: Right, that is part of it. If a man and a woman are in love with each other, they have what is called sex. (i am not gonna define it here, to lazy, we all know what it means). Sometimes, after having sex, the woman gets pregnant, and later has a baby. Thats how you came about.
Kid: Oh, okay. (Possibly:) But what if two people love each other who arent a man and a woman?
Parent: Well, they show their love through a different kind of sex. It is just as beautiful and full of love. The only difference is, they cannot make a baby.
Kid: Ok.

Wow. That was hard.:rolleyes:

I don't care what gay people do in their own homes(i don't agree with homosexuality), but when you bring an innocent child into it, thats where the line has been crossed.

Since more abuse is perpetrated by 'hetero' parents... couldn't the same argument be made, in reverse?

Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?

"When two people love eachother..."

Like you'd know. Genesis is non-literal. Revelations is symbolic. And what about parables? Those never happened. They're stories.

The Resurrection is symbolic.

Yeah...everyone knows women rule the world...That's gotta be a non-literal part of the Bible.
Are you sincerely arguing women should be submissive to men?

Parent: Well, they show their love through a different kind of sex. It is just as beautiful and full of love. The only difference is, they cannot make a baby.
Kid: Ok.

Wow. That was hard.:rolleyes:

Speak for yourself. The thought of two dudes riding each other like dogs makes me wanna puke......again.

Speak for yourself. The thought of two dudes riding each other like dogs makes me wanna puke......again.

One wonders why you entertain the image, then...?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks?

Are you sincerely arguing women should be submissive to men?
NO! Dumbass! Did you even read the quoted text or are you just eager to flame me?

Since more abuse is perpetrated by 'hetero' parents... couldn't the same argument be made, in reverse?


Or, considering that most families are hetero, there is going to be more abuse cases among them. What if homo/hetro families were equal, who's to say the abuse wouldn't be the same?

Either the bible is literal, or it isn't. There isn't really a "pick and choose" option, despite what many people would seem to like.

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. Not all of the bible is literal. To think that is just dumb. But when Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself" he wasnt using a figure of speech. He literally meant love thy neighbor as thyself. Religion is best applied like a buffet. Pick the stuff that works best.

NO! Dumbass! Did you even read the quoted text or are you just eager to flame me?

Actually - the question you were asked wasn't a flame.

On the other hand, calling another poster a 'dumbass' IS a flame.

You might want to read the forum rules, before you feel the Wrath of Mod.

I don't think it should be permitted. That's not a normal household by any stretch of the imagination. You can't really take chances with the development of children if you can help it, and the state would owe a duty of care.

What is normal? Ozzie and Harriet?

I don't run a "normal" household by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm an active bisexual.

The kids seem remarkably happy and well-adjusted, all five of them.

2. Another nature vs. nuture debate, what do you think the child will think when he visits his friends house, who have a mother and father, then he goes home to find just his two fathers. A bit out of the norm, eh?
You mean the child might come home and ask questions? How is this different from a child with a single mother? Or single father? Or is raised by their grandparents? No family is "normal"
3.Yeah, that child, which probably already has enough problems, gets dumped with two homosexuals, which can make the same mistakes as hetero parents do(abuse, sexual or physical, emotional etc.) So no child should have parents, just in case? Research shows that there is less abuse from homosexual parents.
Who knows, the parents may be very loving, but who's to say they would be? And considering they are gay, the lifestyle and culture they bring into that child's life could cause problems later on.(i.e. bullying, depression)Okay, firstly, the number of parents who are abusive are relatively small numbers. Secondly, gay parents are less likely to be abusive. Thirdly, every child is bullied for something at some point. Children are much more resilliant that we give them credit for.

I don't care what gay people do in their own homes(i don't agree with homosexuality), but when you bring an innocent child into it, thats where the line has been crossed.Yes, children would be such victims to have parents rather than being in some institution. Those poor, innocent little cherubs.

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. Not all of the bible is literal. To think that is just dumb. But when Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself" he wasnt using a figure of speech. He literally meant love thy neighbor as thyself. Religion is best applied like a buffet. Pick the stuff that works best.
NOW I can agree with you.

Like you'd know. Genesis is non-literal. Revelations is symbolic. And what about parables? Those never happened. They're stories.
Excuse me? What EXACTLY do you mean by "Like [I'd] know"?

And you just supported my stance by providing three examples of things from the bible that should not be taken literally, while not providing a single example of something that should be.

Or, considering that most families are hetero, there is going to be more abuse cases among them. What if homo/hetro families were equal, who's to say the abuse wouldn't be the same?

PROPORTIONALLY, more abuse is commited by heterosexual parents.

That means - if the numbers were the same... heterosexual parents STILL account for a greater proportion.

Speak for yourself. The thought of two dudes riding each other like dogs makes me wanna puke......again.
If the thought of two people expressing their love in a physical way makes you feel sick, you are the one with problems. Sex - at least, sex when it is the expression of deep passionate love - is beautiful. Doesnt matter who the participants are.

PROPORTIONALLY, more abuse is commited by heterosexual parents.

That means - if the numbers were the same... heterosexual parents STILL account for a greater proportion.
I'd like to see THAT research...Well, off to Church...adios.

If the thought of two people expressing their love in a physical way makes you feel sick, you are the one with problems. Sex - at least, sex when it is the expression of deep passionate love - is beautiful. Doesnt matter who the participants are.

If it's just porn, and the two people are halfway good looking, it's beautiful then, too.

NO! Dumbass! Did you even read the quoted text or are you just eager to flame me?
It wasnt a flame, it was a question. I asked before I flamed, dumbass. I had the impression you were being sarcastic. Its very difficult to read sarcasm over threads. Pardon the misinterpretation.

It wasnt a flame, it was a question. I asked before I flamed, dumbass. I had the impression you were being sarcastic. Its very difficult to read sarcasm over threads. Pardon the misinterpretation.
Likewise, i'd like to offer my apologies. Now I truly must go.

If it's just porn, and the two people are halfway good looking, it's beautiful then, too.
LOL. I wouldnt know. I've never watched any porn.

Why are we talking about what Paul said and meant, anyway? He also said "wives be submissive to your husbands." pssshh. forget that.
hey, that's a valid lifestyle choice, don't knock it.

hey, that's a valid lifestyle choice, don't knock it.

But, then again... it SHOULD be a choice.

hey, that's a valid lifestyle choice, don't knock it.
Well, I suppose your right, but even if it IS a valid lifestyle choice, don't force it on me. I never wanna be submissive to my future husbandunless its in a kinky way I would hope that we would be equals.

Well, I suppose your right, but even if it IS a valid lifestyle choice, don't force it on me. I never wanna be submissive to my future husbandunless its in a kinky way I would hope that we would be equals.

Just make sure you agree on a pre-arranged signal that you want play to stop.

Just make sure you agree on a pre-arranged signal that you want play to stop.
ermm. probably not THAT kinky. But yeah.

But, then again... it SHOULD be a choice.
of course, one can not fully submit unless they actually want to, forcing someone to submit agains thier will is cruel, and un-Christian, the Bible says men should thier wives as Christ loved the church.

of course, one can not fully submit unless they actually want to, forcing someone to submit agains thier will is cruel, and un-Christian, the Bible says men should thier wives as Christ loved the church.

Which leads me off on another of my heretical tangents... if homosexual marriages and relationships were so bad, why is Jesus coming back to marry ALL of us... men, women and children?

Which leads me off on another of my heretical tangents... if homosexual marriages and relationships were so bad, why is Jesus coming back to marry ALL of us... men, women and children?
huh???

huh???

Not aware of Bridal Theology?

Centred on Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"

Correlated with Ephesians 5:31-2 ""For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will be joined to his wife. The two will become one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak concerning Christ and of the assembly."

Reinforced by Second Corinthians 11:2 "For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. For I married you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ."

And Matthew 9:15 "Jesus said to them, "Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast."

And, most importantly, in Revelation 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be exceedingly glad, and let us give the glory to him. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his wife has made herself ready."


The argument is that 'the church' is 'betrothed' to Jesus, and that Revelation shall see this relationship 'consumated'.

(Some Christian groups actually 'consumate' this relationship already... like "The Family", who actually have a scripture dedicated to involving Jesus in your sexual intimacy with a partner or alone... The "Loving Jesus Revelation": http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/lj.htm)

It's not the gay people that first convieve a child and then leave it to its own.

The way I see it, it's charity if they want to care for a child that is not theirs.

Heterosexual parents would be preferable, of course, but a child had still better be fostered by two loving gay/lesbian people than grow up in an orphanage.

*raises glass*
They don't do any worse job than heteros, if they want to, go for it.
*drinks*

Scince homosexuality is actually genetic, it would be seriously wrong to take way their rights or refuse to give them the very same basic privaledges that are taken for granted by the rest of us. I personally beleive that all people were created equal, and that it is only our actions that can change that. Not our genetics.

1. Of course, its morally wrong.

And that affects you how? My hold on my sexuality is not nearly as tenuous as to be concerned that the sexaulity of someone else is worth worrying about. I'm sorry that you find homosexuality to be such a temptation as to be a danger to others.

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.

You're trolling. No one is this ignorant.

Are Bonobo monkeys sinful too? How do you define normal? Exactly like you? See I think what's sinful is calling people names. Calling people fags isn't a very Christlike thing to do. It is unfortunately far more Christian than I would like to admit, but it's definitely not Christlike.

3. Would you wanna be the poor child with two dads, or two moms?

I would wanna be the poor child with loving parents. You would prefer I be the poor child living in a group home with no parents. What kind of person wants that for a child?

Ok, so if a homosexual's child is heterosexual:
Son (or daughter)...when a man loves a woman...
SON: Then what the Hell happened to you?

Not everyone is as ignorant and as rude as you are. More likely the parent would explain the nature of sex AND the nature of love AND the nature of reproduction and the importance of all three and the child would be grateful to have a parent that is willing to talk openly with them instead of poke their eyes out and hope that if they're blind they won't be able to find their parts like the abstinence-only crowd does.

Either the bible is literal, or it isn't. There isn't really a "pick and choose" option, despite what many people would seem to like.

That's a whole other discussion and a load of crap. It's a large book written by dozens of authors many of whom never met or read each other's work. They didn't know that someone would arbitrarily choose to place all of their writings together. Meanwhile, last I checked I can write something meant to teach people have it include both literal and non-literal items, the nuances of which might have been lost in translation.

1. Very well, morals are subjective. I'm not one of those people who forces my beliefs on others.

No? Are you one of those people who insults people who don't think the same way they do? Methinks you are.
2. Another nature vs. nuture debate, what do you think the child will think when he visits his friends house, who have a mother and father, then he goes home to find just his two fathers. A bit out of the norm, eh?

What do you think a child thinks when he sees a black family and his is white? A bit out of the norm, eh?

You use the same arguments that were used against interracial marriage.

3.Yeah, that child, which probably already has enough problems, gets dumped with two homosexuals, which can make the same mistakes as hetero parents do(abuse, sexual or physical, emotional etc.) Who knows, the parents may be very loving, but who's to say they would be? And considering they are gay, the lifestyle and culture they bring into that child's life could cause problems later on.(i.e. bullying, depression)

I don't care what gay people do in their own homes(i don't agree with homosexuality), but when you bring an innocent child into it, thats where the line has been crossed.
Yes, you'd prefer the child be left parentless. Good thing, many of us are far more concerned for the welfare of the children than some arbitrary of assignment of normal. Would that everyone thought that way.

Who do you think is bullying those children? Causing the depression? Intollerant people who call their parents fags. Let's see if we can find any in this thread. Oh, wait, YOU!

Speak for yourself. The thought of two dudes riding each other like dogs makes me wanna puke......again.

Hmmm... one wonders why it affects you so? I don't think of you having sex no matter with whom you choose to do it. Why are you thinking of two men having sex? Moreso, why are you so concerned about thinking about it? What are you afraid of?

Personally, I don't want to think of 95% of the population having sex. You know how I solve that? I don't.

Hmmm... one wonders why it affects you so? I don't think of you having sex no matter with whom you choose to do it. Why are you thinking of two men having sex? Moreso, why are you so concerned about thinking about it? What are you afraid of?

Personally, I don't want to think of 95% of the population having sex. You know how I solve that? I don't.
What, you mean you can actually NOT picture people having sex in your mind?

Clearly, you have been blessed with some strange superpowers!

What, you mean you can actually NOT picture people having sex in your mind?

Clearly, you have been blessed with some strange superpowers!

I find I have considerable control over my ability to control my thoughts. I don't walk around picturing men having sex. HeteroAmerica strangely suggests he does while complaing that it's wrong. Maybe that's his bag, but I don't swing that way.

Similarly, I don't suspect Fass pictures me having sex with my girlfiriend.

I find I have considerable control over my ability to control my thoughts. I don't walk around picturing men having sex. HeteroAmerica strangely suggests he does while complaing that it's wrong. Maybe that's his bag, but I don't swing that way.

It does seem kind of strange of him to do that, when you put it this way.

Maybe he has something he'd like to share with us?


Similarly, I don't suspect Fass pictures me having sex with my girlfiriend.
Neither do I, my friend, and that's how I like it!

It's not the gay people that first convieve a child and then leave it to its own.

The way I see it, it's charity if they want to care for a child that is not theirs.

Heterosexual parents would be preferable, of course, but a child had still better be fostered by two loving gay/lesbian people than grow up in an orphanage.

There was a recent case in our area of two lesbians who lived together. One was artificially inseminated and got pregnant.

Right now they are in a situation where neither wants the child.

I'd say the only people who are off the hook for creating children are gay men who never contribute to sperm banks.

I'd say the only people who are off the hook for creating children are gay men who never contribute to sperm banks.
Funnily enough, I'd been thinking about being a donor.

It somehow would seem a shame to waste my perfectly good genetic material. I mean, I'm premium quality! T'would be a loss for humanity if no woman were to bear my child. :p

Funnily enough, I'd been thinking about being a donor.

It somehow would seem a shame to waste my perfectly good genetic material. I mean, I'm premium quality! T'would be a loss for humanity if no woman were to bear my child. :p

Don't sell yourself short by watering down your genes.

Get cloned.

Funnily enough, I'd been thinking about being a donor.

It somehow would seem a shame to waste my perfectly good genetic material. I mean, I'm premium quality! T'would be a loss for humanity if no woman were to bear my child. :p

R u gay, if so then don't wry u have no good genetic material. Of course thats going with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

R u gay, if so then don't wry u have no good genetic material. Of course thats going with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.

Wow, that's a lot of words and not a thing was actually said.

Wow, that's a lot of words and not a thing was actually said.
lol. I'm so glad u said it, so i didnt have to.

I"m not for gay adoption

lol. I'm so glad u said it, so i didnt have to.
as you put it you called me the moron for my opinions

Are you gay? If so then don't worry, you have no good genetic material. Of course, that's going with the idea that homosexuality is a choice.*EDITED FOR THE SAKE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE*
Your second sentence and third sentence contradict one another. If you are assuming that homosexuality is a choice, then there is no argument for him having "no good genetic material". If it is not a choice, then...well...there still isn't an argument for him having "no good genetic material". The most you could argue against is his homosexuality, in which case you would lose anyway...but you would still be ignoring over 99% of his genetic makeup.


I"m not for gay adoption
Okay. Why not?

I find I have considerable control over my ability to control my thoughts. I don't walk around picturing men having sex. HeteroAmerica strangely suggests he does while complaing that it's wrong. Maybe that's his bag, but I don't swing that way.

Similarly, I don't suspect Fass pictures me having sex with my girlfiriend.

I can see the Meatspin.com hasn't corrupted this one's mind.

as you put it you called me the moron for my opinions
WC and Jocabia both responded to a different post, and their responses were both posted before you posting you were against gay adoption....

WC and Jocabia both responded to a different post, and their responses were both posted before you posting you were against gay adoption....
we were in a different thread and it was on gay marriage

i hate the fact that i can't tell my opinion without getting banned

Okay. Why not?raising a child should have a guy and a girl just because they learn different stuff from hetero couples than homo couples

My crazy deluded opinion is that if heterosexuals don't want homosexuals adopting kids, then heterosexuals should stop making babies that they put up for adoption.
haha I think I love you.

Either way, what does it matter to you? You should just be happy that the kids get a home. How is it any different from a hetero's home? I mean yes different orientation but that doesn't mean anything. Tons of children grow up gay in a straight enviorment, just because the kid grows up in a gay enviorment doesn't mean it'll be 'tainted'

Besides why do you even (this is me restraining from cussing) care our opinions if they're already "deluded"?

i hate the fact that i can't tell my opinion without getting banned

The problem is you. Many with the same opinion have managed to not get banned. You are not banned for your opinion EVER. You can only be banned for HOW you express your opinion not for WHAT you believe.

raising a child should have a guy and a girl just because they learn different stuff from hetero couples than homo couples

What do they learn about NO couples? We are talking about adoption so clearly they don't have a hetero couple to raise them.

Meanwhile, on what basis do you come to the insinuation that what a heterosexual couple has to teach is of more value or even different than a homosexual couple?

The problem is you. Many with the same opinion have managed to not get banned. You are not banned for your opinion EVER. You can only be banned for HOW you express your opinion not for WHAT you believe.
there's a lot of people who would think different

raising a child should have a guy and a girl just because they learn different stuff from hetero couples than homo couples


yes but what about single parents? Just because the kid is raised by a same sex couple doesn't mean they won't see the opposite sex and have the opposite sex's influence in their lives.

there's a lot of people who would think different

None of them are mods. None of the rules discuss who believes what.

What do they learn about NO couples? We are talking about adoption so clearly they don't have a hetero couple to raise them.

Meanwhile, on what basis do you come to the insinuation that what a heterosexual couple has to teach is of more value or even different than a homosexual couple?
if you have a mom and a dad you would learn more because they have more to tell you about

meaning that say you have a girl who is on her peroid a mom would have personal information to talk to her about because she went through th same thing if you have two gay men as parents she couldn't learn about it on the same level as a mom can and (the same goes for a boy with to gay girl parents)

also if you half two of the same gender parents you could not learn as much

yes but what about single parents? Just because the kid is raised by a same sex couple doesn't mean they won't see the opposite sex and have the opposite sex's influence in their lives.
yes but people close to them can talk to them on a more personal level

The problem is you. Many with the same opinion have managed to not get banned. You are not banned for your opinion EVER. You can only be banned for HOW you express your opinion not for WHAT you believe.
i express myself the nicest i can in that situation

None of them are mods. None of the rules discuss who believes what.
who are the mods are they people in the forums, can you become an mod?

sorry if i'm not giving you time to post

raising a child should have a guy and a girl just because they learn different stuff from hetero couples than homo couples
they learn different things from their parents, yes. However, just as a child raised by a single mother is not without male influence, a child raised by two mothers would not be without male influence (or the other way around for two fathers). Actually, it is often easier to go to someone who isn't a parent than to go to a parent.

Additionally, these are children who are up for adotion. There are many many more children who are up for adoption than parents willing to adopt. The choice isn't between straight parents and gay parents. It is often between gay parents and no parents.

I personally learned very little about sex from my parents. Or any family for that matter. I learned most of it from friends, or went and taught myself by finding a book and reading it. When I had questions, I would ask someone. Sometimes my parents, sometimes not. I got equal quality answers from both.

I do feel sorry for the single parents who get divorce because the spouse beats them(that is the only time i believe in divorce) or by other means

yes but people close to them can talk to them on a more personal level

yeah, but I think it's fine as long as the parents don't force their sexuality on the kid. I'm sure at one point in their lives the gay parents were straight. So they're not completely clueless. And I mean even a family friend would be fine. Yes I do see what you're saying but gay kids don't have anyone to talk to if they're parents are close minded so I don't see a difference and I doubt homosexual parents would force it onto their kids. They just want children. Why not just let them have them? it's not going to affect you're life. It's taking the kids off the streets and out of orphanages.

who are the mods are they people in the forums, can you become an mod?
A Mod, then, alone who is not made, 'tis clear, is both beyond all power of thinking-manifest, and is unmanifest.
And as Mod thinketh all things manifest, the Mod manifests through all things and in all, and most of all in whatsoever things the Mod wills to manifest.

I do feel sorry for the single parents who get divorce because the spouse beats them(that is the only time i believe in divorce) or by other means
feel sorry for, sure. But would you take away their children?

I'm sure at one point in their lives the gay parents were straight. then why dont just go back to straight a have a kid yourself

I do feel sorry for the single parents who get divorce because the spouse beats them(that is the only time i believe in divorce) or by other means
Yes but the sad thing is divorces happen all the time, whether you agree with them or not....wow that just came outta the blue...

feel sorry for, sure. But would you take away their children?i wouldn't take away their children
I'd never to that to any couple

Yes but the sad thing is divorces happen all the time, whether you agree with them or not....wow that just came outta the blue...*gives you a cookie*

then why dont just go back to straight a have a kid yourself
Because dear, it's not as easy as that. It's like asking "Why don't you turn gay?" It's just not something you can switch. And as for me, I'd rather not have a kid thanks, I'm 13.

*gives you a cookie*
......wtf

Because dear, it's not as easy as that. It's like asking "Why don't you turn gay?" It's just not something you can switch. And as for me, I'd rather not have a kid thanks, I'm 13.
14 here

There is no reason not to let them be parents. Actually, I'm tired of hearing all these bible thumpers talking about how it contributes to the moral deterioration of our country, yada yada yada, when they're the ones trying to oppress people based on something they have no business having a stance on in the first place. My morals say not to go messing with people's rights. They're gay. They're not hurting anyone, not you, nor their children. If your a homophobic punk, live with it, becuase it's not your place to tell them what they can and cannot do.

......wtf
eat the cookie.

......wtfwhat a just gave you a cookie

There is no reason not to let them be parents. Actually, I'm tired of hearing all these bible thumpers talking about how it contributes to the moral deterioration of our country, yada yada yada, when they're the ones trying to oppress people based on something they have no business having a stance on in the first place. My morals say not to go messing with people's rights. They're gay. They're not hurting anyone, not you, nor their children. If your a homophobic punk, live with it, becuase it's not your place to tell them what they can and cannot do.
it hurts me on the inside

i wouldn't take away their children
I'd never to that to any couple
This is no longer a couple. It is a single parent.

And if you would still not take away their child, why should a homosexual couple be any different? The child still only recieves influence from one gender as far as parents go, and would probably have a much more negative attitude towards the non-parental gender in the case of single parenting than homosexual parents.

it hurts me on the inside

Why? Why do you care what they do? It's not like they're going around killing and raping people, not like they went and harassed your children, or turned their children into gay rapists or something. If it "hurts you on the inside" you need to grow up.

what a just gave you a cookie
Yes but I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm...

There is no reason not to let them be parents. Actually, I'm tired of hearing all these bible thumpers talking about how it contributes to the moral deterioration of our country, yada yada yada, when they're the ones trying to oppress people based on something they have no business having a stance on in the first place. My morals say not to go messing with people's rights. They're gay. They're not hurting anyone, not you, nor their children. If your a homophobic punk, live with it, becuase it's not your place to tell them what they can and cannot do.
thank you

Yes but I wasn't sure if that was sarcasm...
it's not

thank you
why are you one gay couple

You know....at least homosexuals have planned pregnancies, you can't say that's a bad thing.

why are you one gay couple
Um....no, and I'm single thanks. And bi therefore it wouldn't be a gay couple.

it's not
Oh....*eats cookie*

as you put it you called me the moron for my opinions
Erm, I dont remember that, but it is possible. Some times my temper gets the best of me. Sorry if I somehow played a role in you being banned.....

I really do wish people would mind their own business. As long as your not hurting anyone else, do what you want and feel is right. Respect other people to do the same. World would be a much better place.

if you have a mom and a dad you would learn more because they have more to tell you about

Based on what? Why are those two people more capable of teaching you about the world than any two other people?

meaning that say you have a girl who is on her peroid a mom would have personal information to talk to her about because she went through th same thing if you have two gay men as parents she couldn't learn about it on the same level as a mom can and (the same goes for a boy with to gay girl parents)

Yes, because gay men don't have sisters, mothers, friends, etc.

also if you half two of the same gender parents you could not learn as much

Yes, you said that, but it's based on a false assumption.

yes but people close to them can talk to them on a more personal level

So there grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc., aren't close to them, huh? My uncle was one of the most formative influences in my life. My grandfather taught me how to be a man and he wasn't genetically related to me.

A Mod, then, alone who is not made, 'tis clear, is both beyond all power of thinking-manifest, and is unmanifest.
And as Mod thinketh all things manifest, the Mod manifests through all things and in all, and most of all in whatsoever things the Mod wills to manifest.
How very God-like. These Moderators are not just mods, but godmods, it seems.

who are the mods are they people in the forums, can you become an mod?

Me? I doubt it. But they are members of the forum who have shown a certain fairness and understanding of the rules.

You express yourself the best you can in the situation? So it's the mods' fault that you can't control yourself?

How very God-like. These Moderators are not just mods, but godmods, it seems.
Don't let them know I told you so.

Thing is, and someone may have brought this up already, but all the stupid, childish banter gave me little reason to keep reading through this thread...

What a horrid, inhospitible climate it most be for the homosexual foster children if everything is as you people claim.

Obviously, if a perfectly normal heterosexual child cannot be raised properly by an otherwise perfectly normal homoexual couple because of horrific hardships endured, being exposed to constant attempts to 'convert' the child to homosexuality, and who knows what other brutalities... What about the poor homosexual children in current foster homes? How do -they- make it?

Thing is, most foster parents I know are extremely 'religious'... almost to the point of being fanatical nutjobs. But that's quite okay. It's okay to place children in an environment where they'll be condemned for their sexuality, punished for it, and then have to endure endless attempts to have it changed... if they happen to be a homosexual under the 'care' of heterosexual parents.

It's not fair to the poor kids.

If people are so worried, take a hike. Speak up after you've been what these kids have. Do you -know- what it's like to be a foster kid? It's an awful life to go through, being shuttled from one foster home to another, unable to make lasting friends because you never know when you'll be going to an entirely different school. These kids just want and -need- a family... any sort of family, as long as they will love them. If a homosexual couple is willing to take in children and love and care for them, let them.

So worried about psychological effects? Consider this one:

What -I- worry about is what you people would create if you did something so simple as say: "Okay, let the gay couples take in gay foster kids."

Okay, and say that suddenly 500 gay couples sign up to be foster parents... How many kids would claim they were gay, even if not, just to have some semblance of normal life? How many might even pretend at it, live an awful little lie, so that they could have the happiness of an accepting pair of parents that have been missing from their lives?

Consider all of that, and tell me this is still wrong.

I've always felt that homosexuals are a natural solution to a natural problem. I'm only bi myself, but any children I ever have in my house I intend to adopt... I don't need to give birth to a child to love them and be a good mother. And there are so many countless thousands of children who need parents...

If you want to help the problem, go get the operation done. Especially if you're a guy, since it's -way- safer. Instead of bringing babies into the world, try and love one already here.

And stop hating people because of their sexuality. And yes, saying they can't love a child the same way -is- a sort of hate. So what if there's no mother or no father? How many millions of children are raised in one-parent homes? Children find what they need any way they have to. If being raised by a lesbian couple, perhaps the child will latch onto the elderly gentleman across the street as a father figure, or a leader in Scouts or some other organization they could join... Children are often much more resourceful and knowledgeable about their needs than given credit for.

Those were my thoughts presicely. The topic is a no-brainer, in my opinion. It's like raising the 'issue' of "Should a single mother/father be allowed to raise a child?" Absolutely, as long as the parent is able to properly love, care for, and properly RAISE the child. Now no one is perfect, so...just generally speaking...
If a single parent is able to properly raise a child, why shouldn't any willing and caring couple be able to, all opinions of sexuality aside? Judging someone bedause of a simple one-or-the-other preference is just silly. It's like saying; "What? You prefer chocolate over vanilla?! Eternal damnation awaits you, sinner!"
Also, do you really think that the child would CARE?! "No, I don't want homo parents; even though they may be better able to care for me, I don't want any of that! It would be a bad influence on me." *sigh*
I understand that there is a fear of the unknown, everyone. Inform yourself, then. Don't hate.

Adoption is not foster parenting silly. Step down to a lower soapbox.

Im fine with both.

Then they shouldn't have kids and be so absent as a parent that they end up in a foster home

I'm all homosexual and lesbian couples adopting or fostering - I do get a bit stuck with lesibain couples wanting IVF though - if you want to be a mother THAT badly and there's nothing physically wrong with you (as IVF is prodominantly the treatment of infertillity) - go to a sperm bank or sleep with a guy

This thread is very long.

i dig girls
therefore i support it.

it's good to live in country that allows homosexual people to get married,adopt,etc.

What, they want to be able to raise kids as a homosexual set of foster parents? This cannot go on, such is a perversion of what is right and healthy for a child to develop properly. That's my view, what's your crazy deluded opinion?

After all, heterosexual couples make great parents 100% of the time. Maybe we should swap the word "homosexual" for "black", or "republican".

if you have a mom and a dad you would learn more because they have more to tell you about

meaning that say you have a girl who is on her peroid a mom would have personal information to talk to her about because she went through th same thing if you have two gay men as parents she couldn't learn about it on the same level as a mom can and (the same goes for a boy with to gay girl parents)

My mom grew up in a home with a mother and father, but because they were so conservative there was NOBODY who talked to her about her body. When she got her first period, she thought she was dying of cancer because nobody had told her anything about it.

Having a female person around doesn't guarantee anything, any more than having a male person around does.

You express yourself the best you can in the situation? So it's the mods' fault that you can't control yourself?it might be their fault i don't know

This thread is very long.

i dig girls
therefore i support it.

it's good to live in country that allows homosexual people to get married,adopt,etc.
wait which country are you in

This thread is very long.

i dig girls
therefore i support it.

it's good to live in country that allows homosexual people to get married,adopt,etc.
Congrats. Sadly, not all of us are so lucky...atleast, not yet.

ban gay marriages in all the states and i will fight for my country

ban gay marriages in all the states and i will fight for my country

What's wrong with gay marriage?

This whole discussion makes me want to puke; I'm overwhelmingly disgusted at the bigotry and complete lack of empathy on the part of the people who oppose the right for homosexuals to marry and adopt children. You people are worse than the KKK.

What's wrong with gay marriage?
please lets not start an agrueement lets stay on topic

My mom grew up in a home with a mother and father, but because they were so conservative there was NOBODY who talked to her about her body. When she got her first period, she thought she was dying of cancer because nobody had told her anything about it.

Having a female person around doesn't guarantee anything, any more than having a male person around does.

I so relate to this.
I grew up in a normal family.:headbang:
My Normal Heterosexual Mother never mentioned periods to me, so when I started to bleed, I ran screaming to her, begging her to take me to hospital, thinking I was going to die. I still can't watch Carrie.

On the being strong enough to cope with the ridicule...My Normal Heterosexual Father was an alchoholic and the town slut, which got me ridiculed at school.

Having Gay/Les foster parents would simply mean the teasing was focused on that, instead of something else.

I consider myself to have had quite a good childhood, overall. ;-) I was never bored.

SiDana

This whole discussion makes me want to puke; I'm overwhelmingly disgusted at the bigotry and complete lack of empathy on the part of the people who oppose the right for homosexuals to marry and adopt children. You people are worse than the KKK.
no they kill I don't

please lets not start an agrueement lets stay on topic
I believe you brought it up - "ban all gay marriages". Or did I miss something?

ban gay marriages in all the states and i will fight for my country
sorry wrong thread

I believe you brought it up - "ban all gay marriages". Or did I miss something?
sorry that was ment for the "the army" thread

we can argue about it if you want i got time

2. Its NOT normal, even though the entire world and media try to make it normal, and the growing gay population is frightening. What killed the Roman Empire? Too many fags.


I actually think this is funny. You do realise the SITH are gay don't you?
All the symbology is there is you look. All hail the Fogotten Gay Lords! :p

@resident gay forumers
I have great respect for the tolerance you guys & gals have shown people on this thread. I don't know whether i would be able to remain as civil. Bravo.

@homophobes
As a soon to be parent, all i can say is that should something happen and my daughter his left with no family I can only hope 2 responsible loving adults would adopt my child. I don't care if they are gay/straight/bi. As long as they're in a heathly relationship and can supply for her the rest does not matter!

my 2cents for whatever its worth

my 2cents for whatever its worthexactly 2 cents:p (sarcasm)

raising a child should have a guy and a girl just because they learn different stuff from hetero couples than homo couples

Surely all children MUST have siblings, then? Because I learned stuff from my sister, that was different to what I learned from my brothers?

Also - One of my grandparents died quite a long time ago - which is unfortunate, because now I have an unbalanced number... and I learned different things from each of them.

And, one of my uncles remarried... so - in a way, I have too many aunts, I guess.

There IS no 'right' number, and no 'right' configuration. You assume that parents are the ONLY influence a child will have, and that one can ONLY get a balanced upbringing based on the arrangement of those parents. Which is clearly ridiculous... children in single-parent families have been finding 'other' rolemodels for about as long as there have been people...

if you have a mom and a dad you would learn more because they have more to tell you about

meaning that say you have a girl who is on her peroid a mom would have personal information to talk to her about because she went through th same thing if you have two gay men as parents she couldn't learn about it on the same level as a mom can and (the same goes for a boy with to gay girl parents)

also if you half two of the same gender parents you could not learn as much

It depends entirely on the parents, and the relationship. My daughter isn't old enough to be worrying about periods yet... but she overheard the word... and we have a relationship that is close enough that she asked me, because I happened to be 'nearest'.

And - because I am a 21st century man, and think that guys SHOULD know about these things... I actually have quite a lot of information to share on the topic.

it hurts me on the inside

Which isn't actually a good enough reason to have your will as law.

The same argument, as I'm sure you will be aware, if you think about it, is made by lots of people about lots of issues... not least, the wannabe parents you would see deprived.

I believe you brought it up - "ban all gay marriages". Or did I miss something?

I was about to point that out. I think it was a simple matter of not wanting you to explore (another) gaping chink in the armour of his(her?) argument.

As a wise man once said (or would have, if he'd though of it) If something hurts you on the inside, take a Tums and stop complaining.

It depends entirely on the parents, and the relationship. My daughter isn't old enough to be worrying about periods yet... but she overheard the word... and we have a relationship that is close enough that she asked me, because I happened to be 'nearest'.

And - because I am a 21st century man, and think that guys SHOULD know about these things... I actually have quite a lot of information to share on the topic.
Personally, I think that any man who can't--or won't--discuss his daughter's period with her is a man who shouldn't have children in the first place. That's fundamental, basic knowledge that all people should have long before they're even thinking about reproducing.

it might be their fault i don't know

Ah, I see, you're trolling. You don't actually think that your problems with self-control are other peoples' problems. Last I checked, there's a reason they call it self-control.

ban gay marriages in all the states and i will fight for my country

Ah, I see. So you'll fight for your country as long as it stops representing freedom. In that case, I hope you never fight for your country.

ban gay marriages in all the states and i will fight for my country
Such conflicting emotions in me...

On the one hand, I would hate to think that my country is being defended by a pack of rabid homophobes. I would be embarassed to have my nation represented by such loonies.

On the other hand, it's not like I really want to pack the armed forces with our most reasonable and caring people, because then the homophobes will be left behind to clutter up civilian life.

How about this: We'll happily 'ban' gay marriage in all states, as long as all you ignorant, bigoted rednecks sign up for the military. Then we'll send you all off to fight North Korea. On foot. With no body armour, no weapons, nothing.

That sounds fitting to me...

We might even be able to reclaim governance by the people afterwards! And, heaven forbid, get the government to stop being as bigoted as you are! Imagine that... a government that actually didn't care what gender, race, sexual orientation, etc its citizens were, as long as they pay their taxes and don't burglarize, rape or kill people.

How about this: We'll happily 'ban' gay marriage in all states, as long as all you ignorant, bigoted rednecks sign up for the military. Then we'll send you all off to fight North Korea. On foot. With no body armour, no weapons, nothing.

That sounds fitting to me...

We might even be able to reclaim governance by the people afterwards! And, heaven forbid, get the government to stop being as bigoted as you are! Imagine that... a government that actually didn't care what gender, race, sexual orientation, etc its citizens were, as long as they pay their taxes and don't burglarize, rape or kill people.

Kidding or not, you had better be careful there. You are coming very close to suggesting that all of the people who don't agree with you need to die.

No, I just think it's stupid they're willing to fight for a repressed theocracy, but not a free, democratic republic. Fine, let them fight for a theocracy... all of them. And maybe they'll get themselves killed in the process, since that's what happens when you fight stupid wars nobody at home believes in over stupid goals that are impossible to achieve.

We're currently in a 'war' against terrorism? What a stupid idea that was. How about next we start a war against rape. I bet we'd be just as effective. Wars are fought by soldiers, and terrorists are anything but. The only 'terrorists' being killed in Iraq are in fact (shock and awe) insurgents! Not terrorists.

So, the only result is that people die. An -endless- supply of people die, no less, and worse, is the many who live, but maimed for life. The ones who now have to survive without one or more limbs, or who are now blind, or any of a host of other permanent injuries suffered in this 'war'.

Anyways, back to my point: These bigots who hate homosexuals so much typically hate Muslims just as much, so ship them all off to fight in wars. If they continue committing atrocities, well, we'll have the perfect excuse: "Sorry, it's just because we only employ bigots in our military, we got tired of putting up with them back at home."

there's a lot of people who would think different

Ah yes, the dreaded 'Liberal Bias' (church organ choir!) in action. :rolleyes:


Please, pray tell, who of the following is more likely to be banned?

A: "In my opinion, we should not allow same-sex marriages."
or
B: "OMG WE SHUD LEt gaYZ marry U L00zer!!!1 FU pEd00!"

No, I just think it's stupid they're willing to fight for a repressed theocracy, but not a free, democratic republic. Fine, let them fight for a theocracy... all of them. And maybe they'll get themselves killed in the process, since that's what happens when you fight stupid wars nobody at home believes in over stupid goals that are impossible to achieve.

We're currently in a 'war' against terrorism? What a stupid idea that was. How about next we start a war against rape. I bet we'd be just as effective. Wars are fought by soldiers, and terrorists are anything but. The only 'terrorists' being killed in Iraq are in fact (shock and awe) insurgents! Not terrorists.

So, the only result is that people die. An -endless- supply of people die, no less, and worse, is the many who live, but maimed for life. The ones who now have to survive without one or more limbs, or who are now blind, or any of a host of other permanent injuries suffered in this 'war'.

Anyways, back to my point: These bigots who hate homosexuals so much typically hate Muslims just as much, so ship them all off to fight in wars. If they continue committing atrocities, well, we'll have the perfect excuse: "Sorry, it's just because we only employ bigots in our military, we got tired of putting up with them back at home."

So we're sending them off to kill all the Muslims in North Korea?

Anyways, back to my point: These bigots who hate homosexuals so much typically hate Muslims just as much, so ship them all off to fight in wars. If they continue committing atrocities, well, we'll have the perfect excuse: "Sorry, it's just because we only employ bigots in our military, we got tired of putting up with them back at home."

Curious, in 'their' eyes would a gay muslim cancel him/herself out and thus be an 'acceptable' person? (double negative?)

I always worry about people like you, why do you think this?

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.

You have some intruiging sexual fantasies.

I can assure you that I do not.

I can assure you that I do not.

Then how do you come up with that stuff ?

No, I just think it's stupid they're willing to fight for a repressed theocracy, but not a free, democratic republic. Fine, let them fight for a theocracy... all of them. And maybe they'll get themselves killed in the process, since that's what happens when you fight stupid wars nobody at home believes in over stupid goals that are impossible to achieve.

I warn you that you get in trouble wishing death on people and your response is to do it again? Not a quick learner are you? Trust me on this, don't do it. You're gonna lose your account.

So we're sending them off to kill all the Muslims in North Korea?

say it correctly. Gay Commie muslims in north korea:headbang:

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.

God made everyone gay. We are in his image, remember.

Also - of course... the reason you have to forbid things, is to stop people doing them, no?

So - why would God SPECIFICALLY single-out homosexuality to forbid? Obvious answer - god knows we are all gay. You, me... everyone.

God made everyone gay. We are in his image, remember.

...Go on.

Also - of course... the reason you have to forbid things, is to stop people doing them, no?

Yes! Jesus taught love and forgiveness, and forgiveness doesnt exist without sin to forgive.

So - why would God SPECIFICALLY single-out homosexuality to forbid? Obvious answer - god knows we are all gay. You, me... everyone.

He doesnt SPECIFICALLY single out homosexuality. Heres the story of Leviticus:

It was a book written to control the Jews during the exodus. They wanted to control their numbers, keep them alive, and stop them from adhering to other cultures as they wanted jewish tradition to continue. So for example: No touching the skin of a dead pig. If you did so, you would most likely get a disease and die. Their explanation: Touching pig = death, god doesnt want you to touch pig.

As for homosexuality, it was prominient in other cultures, especially pagan cultures. Leviticus was written to keep the jewish culture alive, so it banned any practice from other cultures.

Well, consider this: most people in the U.S. can't seem to find states -in- the U.S. on a map, let alone know anything about other countries. Always seems to be that people are horrifically ignorant about the rest of the world in America. So, tell them that North Korea is full of gay, Satan-worshipping, Communist Muslims and they'll believe you! (Even though Satan-worshipping and being a Muslim are mutually exclusive.)

We're talking about a country that cares more about who is better at making craptacularly (yeah, fun word, huh?) -horrific- music than about who's deciding national policy. We're talking about a country where people that are 'pro-life' want the death penalty for people who help with birth control. We're talking about a country where people in the military lynch homosexuals, transsexuals, and even people that -might- be gay, and it takes a massive public outcry to get proper punishment... yet never a change in the bigoted environment that leads to that in the first place!

Thing is, personally, I -abhor- war, it pains me to read the news and discover how many more people have died in Iraq... I don't want -anyone- to die... But if these people are so intent on being hateful, spiteful, and regressive, then maybe they need to take their policies elsewhere. Because there -are- places where such attitudes are still common, and they're called 'third world nations'. Of course, sadly, the people here in America with such hateful views wouldn't survive in those countries, they rely too much on things like being able to go down to the local grocery store and buy food. The U.S. has become the most regressive 'first world nation' in the entire world. While other nations become increasingly more free, liberal, and progressive, the United States seems intent on making a U-turn and heading back toward the Dark Ages.

And the bit about Leviticus is actually quite correct. I'm half surprised it didn't have things like: "And if your wife prepares food for you that your own mother did not prepare for you, she shall be stoned to death for poisoning you with strange foods." or, "If a man or woman is seen wearing garb not worn by others of his tribe, they shall be stripped of their clothes, which shall be burned, and outcast to die in the wilderness."

Leviticus is all about inanely absurd punishments for -everything- under the sun. Do anything wrong, and you're either to be killed, or have to go sacrifice goats.

Well, I'm sorry, but in the end, God apparently hates bacon as much as homosexuals, so I hope you never eat bacon. Or commit any of the other hundreds of crimes in that stupid book. Proper Christians read the New Testament, and learn that the most important things in life are love and forgiveness. BAD Christians read the Old Testament and then sign up with the KKK to go lynch neighbors. Which one are you?

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.

Does anyone else get the image of satanic dildos?
What about lesbionic? Are those Bionicly enhanced lesbians?

DEAR GOD, he's RIGHT! What's going to happen when bionicly enhanced lesbians with satanic dildos attack schools! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! why won't anyone think of the children!!!

You have some intruiging sexual fantasies.

He is probably upset because he thinks it will get in the way of incest.

*starts playing banjo music*

DEAR GOD, he's RIGHT! What's going to happen when bionicly enhanced lesbians with satanic dildos attack schools!Damn it. They only gave us toasters.

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.
Who's more perverted...the gay couple who wants to adopt a child, or the person who actually came up with this scenario as not only being possible, but inevitable?

Not only would homosexuals be inclined to lead any children in their care onto a road of satanic sexual deviancy, but think of the practiclaities. Every day going to school, homosexuals would converge on a place of education with hundreds of young children, possibly wielding their tools of satanci depravity. In the end it will end up in a mass queer/lesbionic paedophiliac rape; because this is what homosexuals know and enjoy; they are evil people.


Please; you're making the people of Georgia look like ignorant, intolerant charicatures.

Please; you're making the people of Georgia look like ignorant, intolerant charicatures.

I hope you realize it was a joke.

I hope you realize it was a joke.

One would hope you'd do a post search on The State of Georgia before you assume that to be a joke.

It isn't. It's unadulterated trolling by a poster with a history of even worse posts about gay people.

One would hope you'd do a post search on The State of Georgia before you assume that to be a joke.

It isn't. It's unadulterated trolling by a poster with a history of even worse posts about gay people.

Seriously? I laughed when I read it. I thought there was no way it could be serious. I guess I often give human beings too much credit.

Seriously? I laughed when I read it. I thought there was no way it could be serious. I guess I often give human beings too much credit.

And interestingly enough, you're not new to NS.

Has anyone mentioned We Are Dad yet? http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0447538/

If anyone thinks they have an opinnion that gay people can't form families to the great benefit of the state and children, do yourself a favor and see it. Any argument against gay marrige and against gay adoption is an assertion that these people have too much joy and freedom that they neither deserve nor can be trusted with. I'm not going to kid you, the choice is persecuting the most disadvantaged children, or giving up an insane notion of morality where some people are more equal by virtue of who they love.

You know what's funny. I have heard that homosexuals make their kids homosexual. The stupid thing is, where do the homosexuals come from? Straight families DUH! And watch Homophobe's kids be born gay or bi just to spite him. I wouldn't be suprised. Like with me, my dad is set on the fact that all muslims are terrorists, and because of that I believe that he is a racist. If he didn't keep making so many statments about the fact that they are supposed terrorists then I probably wouldn't have made so many muslim friends, just to spite him.

Thus I think that people with homophobia will have children will either associate with the gay or bi relations or make many friends/defend them.

Just my thoughts

NaomiHope...interesting theory! I think we should push it...because if the children of homosexual couples will likely go 'straight' just to spite their parents, then the people who desperately want 'gayness' to disappear can choose to turn their children over to teh gays!

Seriously? I laughed when I read it. I thought there was no way it could be serious. I guess I often give human beings too much credit.

Jocabia, some people on this forum are too self-righteous to allow for humor. Baq, Gauthier, and a few others fall into this category.

Jocabia, some people on this forum are too self-righteous to allow for humor. Baq, Gauthier, and a few others fall into this category.
Search this particular poster's posts. If he's trolling, then he's breaking the ToS...but his posts are consistent.

But hey, verbally bashing gay people is still sort of okay...you don't get the kind of reaction going on about 'teh gays' as you do when you start shouting about alabama porch monkeys.

Search this particular poster's posts. If he's trolling, then he's breaking the ToS...but his posts are consistent.

But hey, verbally bashing gay people is still sort of okay...you don't get the kind of reaction going on about 'teh gays' as you do when you start shouting about alabama porch monkeys.

I could name a few people whose posts are consistently "I hate you and I wish you were dead, and I hope you rot in hell", and no one, not even you, call them on it. Nor do the mods.

I've slept with men and I'm not offended. Why are you?

I could name a few people whose posts are consistently "I hate you and I wish you were dead, and I hope you rot in hell", and no one, not even you, call them on it. Nor do the mods.

I've slept with men and I'm not offended. Why are you?
I could care less if you've slept with men and think these posts are just fine and dandy. It's not really up to you, or me. But you have characterised them as 'humour'. That's your spin on it. Good for you. Calling other people self-righteous because they find offensive posts to be offensive, is really pointless.

Leviticus was written to keep the jewish culture alive, so it banned any practice from other cultures.

Any practice? You mean like... eating? Sleeping? Breathing?

Jocabia, some people on this forum are too self-righteous to allow for humor. Baq, Gauthier, and a few others fall into this category.

Actually, this poster wasn't kidding. And I'm unimpressed by your complaints.

Posters are allowed to post their offensive positions. However, if we all just start pretending to have offensive opinions to offend everyone then the whole forum becomes pointless. The mods didn't make up the definition of trolling. It's not a NS-specific term. The mods simply enforce it for our benefit.

I personally don't wish to waste my time trying to explain my view to someone who already holds it but is pretending to be an idiot, which is what trolls do. I like the format of this forum and that's why I'm here. You don't like the rules of a private forum you don't own, well, you know what you can do about it. There are plenty of forums that will let you troll all day long or that believe in censorship of personally-held ideas. You're free to go to those places and I'm sure no one here will complain about it.

He doesnt SPECIFICALLY single out homosexuality. Heres the story of Leviticus:


Actually - the text DOES specifically single out homosexuality... just as it specifically singles out hundreds of other things.

It was a book written to control the Jews during the exodus. They wanted to control their numbers, keep them alive, and stop them from adhering to other cultures as they wanted jewish tradition to continue. So for example: No touching the skin of a dead pig. If you did so, you would most likely get a disease and die. Their explanation: Touching pig = death, god doesnt want you to touch pig.


None of which is relevent to the issue of homosexuality.

As for homosexuality, it was prominient in other cultures, especially pagan cultures. Leviticus was written to keep the jewish culture alive, so it banned any practice from other cultures.

The scripture strongly suggests that David was homosexual... so it isn't a matter of what was 'prominent in other cultures'.

Also - of course - leviticus DOESN'T ban "any practise from other cultures"... it has very specific rules, and ignores a lot of things the Hebrews did the everyone did. If Leviticus 'did' anything, it served the purpose of being a Hebrew language version of the laws the Hebrews found in their Babylonian exile.

Who's more perverted...the gay couple who wants to adopt a child, or the person who actually came up with this scenario as not only being possible, but inevitable?
This reminds me of the people who are getting so crazed over the HPV vaccine.

[For anybody who doesn't know, HPV is a virus that is sexually transmitted, and which is responsible for almost all cases of cervical cancer. There's a new vaccine for it, and it will work best if administered to 11 and 12 year old girls, but fundies are screaming that it will turn them all into sluts.]

There was an article I read where this woman basically said, "If I give my daughter the HPV vaccine, I'll have to tell her all about crazy orgy sex, and then she'll want to go have crazy orgy sex! The vaccine will make my child a slut!!!!"

And all I could think was, "Holy hell, woman, why the fuck would you treat your own child like that?! She's bloody 10 years old! Do you give her a graphic description of tetanus every time she gets a booster shot?!"

It's so funny to see some people freak out about gays supposedly sexualizing children, when the homophobes are the ones who seem to entertain the most perverted sexual fantasies about their own kids.