Some other gay-related subject.

[AnonymouZ]

Well, i was just thinking ...as in "i ain't got nothing to do," and thought the following:

I am ok with people being gay. I don't really care if they get married either, since i don't believe in monogamy, BUT why are they allowed to have kids?

It's a well known fact that v****a plus v****a don't make babies, or that p***s and a**s don't make a kid either... so if they decide to go with their "natural" instincts, why are they going against them when they try to/or adopt a kid?

Then again, it's that whole nature vs nurture thing, but if you grow up among gay people then maybe the kid is gonna grow up to be gay, and once again when he/she grow up and want a family, he/she will have to rely on other people's kids/sperms/eggs so that they can have one of their own. Thus reproducing "not-naturally". Hell, THEY (gay parents) are not reproducing either, it's only ONE of them who gets to puts his/her genes on the kid.

I guess it's one way to look at it, tho i realize it sounds as if i was trying to make homosexuality sound as a disease, but... that's not my point. I guess i just want to know about your ideas about my bold question. domokun


edit: added stuff in italics  

[Superior Jazz]

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.  

[AnonymouZ]

Superior Jazz

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.

says who? and also... how did you find that out? (i really wanna know about that... as in where can i find that kind of scientific research) but anyway... what IF, this kid is really influenced by how female/male parental roles interact and he gets the idea that not being gay is wrong. How does a gay parent fix that in any case? "it's ok johnny, you can have a girlfriend and be 'normal' while i'm being normal my own way" Can you see the conflict on the reasoning?  

[Muaethia]

You obviously have no desire for children yourself, because you don't seem to understand that the instincts of wanting to have a child, nurture it and care for it and become a family are unrelated to your sexual preference. Hell, I know straight couples who don't want to have kids.

Quote:

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.

Exactly. What about single parent families? They seem to manage to produce non-gay offspring without the "mother" or "father" figure being there. Being brought up in a household with a gay couple as parents may get a child bullied by intolerent people, I admit, but it's changing. Plus, they'll learn tolerence and have a damn sight better start in life than going off to a care home.

So, are you saying it's wrong for two loving, caring people to take a child out of a foster care home and give them a good start in life? Or would it be better, perhaps, if the child lived in a home for its childhood and ended up with no permenant family. Think about it.

P.s. 'natural'? What, like giving straight couples IVF and other fertility treatment, yet not allowing the stem cell treatment required for two lesbians to have genetically combined offspring? (yes, it can be done). You say having kids is something 'natural', but we let infertile straight couples adopt, and having kids is not 'natural' for them. Just because you can't concieve a child in the natural way does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to use the technology in modern science to have a child.

P.p.s so what if the child turns out gay? A higher gay population will eventually mean less population growth, = more food for the future.  

[Muaethia]

anon_nymouz

Superior Jazz

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.

says who? and also... how did you find that out? (i really wanna know about that... as in where can i find that kind of scientific research) but anyway... what IF, this kid is really influenced by how female/male parental roles interact and he gets the idea that not being gay is wrong. How does a gay parent fix that in any case? "it's ok johnny, you can have a girlfriend and be 'normal' while i'm being normal my own way" Can you see the conflict on the reasoning?

That's bullshit. There's enough straight couples in the media: On TV, high profile celebrities, even in fairytales and childrens' story books, for children to know that a man loving a woman is also socially acceptable.

A child's primary socialisation (its family) does not usually shape it's future ideas on how relationships work. Peer groups will do that when the time comes for the child to begin dating.

P.s. nature versus nature? Go and read some Chomsky please. There have been numerous studies.  

[Sanguvixen]

Ummm...because they are human?

Straight couples end up with children who are both gay, or straight.

So with that in mind Being homsexual and have a kid to care for doesn't mean the kid will grow up "Gay".

That logic doesn't work, because Gays came from straight parents. Look at it that way. Just because your parents are straight doesn't mean you will be.

If the gays want to adopt than let them. After all, that means some kid that other straight couples don't have the heart to adopt will have a home.

 

[Muaethia]

I'm not going to let this drop 'till you reply to my other post. As for your edit,

Quote:

Thus reproducing "not-naturally". Hell, THEY (gay parents) are not reproducing either, it's only ONE of them who gets to puts his/her genes on the kid.

I have already stated that this is wrong as new research is allowing (in the case of lesbian couples, at least) the replacing of the DNA in a sperm cell, so that the child is actually both of the womens' (though because there cannot be any Y chromosomes the resulting child will always be female).

Doubt they'll be making it legal in most countries within the next 20 years though -_-  

[AnonymouZ]

Muaethia

You obviously have no desire for children yourself, because you don't seem to understand that the instincts of wanting to have a child, nurture it and care for it and become a family are unrelated to your sexual preference. Hell, I know straight couples who don't want to have kids.

Quote:

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.

Exactly. What about single parent families? They seem to manage to produce non-gay offspring without the "mother" or "father" figure being there. Being brought up in a household with a gay couple as parents may get a child bullied by intolerent people, I admit, but it's changing. Plus, they'll learn tolerence and have a damn sight better start in life than going off to a care home.

So, are you saying it's wrong for two loving, caring people to take a child out of a foster care home and give them a good start in life? Or would it be better, perhaps, if the child lived in a home for its childhood and ended up with no permenant family. Think about it.

P.s. 'natural'? What, like giving straight couples IVF and other fertility treatment, yet not allowing the stem cell treatment required for two lesbians to have genetically combined offspring? (yes, it can be done). You say having kids is something 'natural', but we let infertile straight couples adopt, and having kids is not 'natural' for them. Just because you can't concieve a child in the natural way does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to use the technology in modern science to have a child.

P.p.s so what if the child turns out gay? A higher gay population will eventually mean less population growth, = more food for the future.

I spent a lot of ******** time writing my response to this... and SHITTY ******** SON OF A b***h WHORE "BACKSPACE" key got in the way of my posting it... so now all my clever remarks are gone... ********... oh well... i will edit this later on with my response... but just... wait a few more hours till my ******** pissed off mood dies.  

[Muaethia]

anon_nymouz

Muaethia

You obviously have no desire for children yourself, because you don't seem to understand that the instincts of wanting to have a child, nurture it and care for it and become a family are unrelated to your sexual preference. Hell, I know straight couples who don't want to have kids.

Quote:

A child raised in a homosexual household has no greater chance of being gay than any other child. It has nothing to do with nurture. It has everything to do with nature. Having gay parents will not increase the odds of that child being gay.

Exactly. What about single parent families? They seem to manage to produce non-gay offspring without the "mother" or "father" figure being there. Being brought up in a household with a gay couple as parents may get a child bullied by intolerent people, I admit, but it's changing. Plus, they'll learn tolerence and have a damn sight better start in life than going off to a care home.

So, are you saying it's wrong for two loving, caring people to take a child out of a foster care home and give them a good start in life? Or would it be better, perhaps, if the child lived in a home for its childhood and ended up with no permenant family. Think about it.

P.s. 'natural'? What, like giving straight couples IVF and other fertility treatment, yet not allowing the stem cell treatment required for two lesbians to have genetically combined offspring? (yes, it can be done). You say having kids is something 'natural', but we let infertile straight couples adopt, and having kids is not 'natural' for them. Just because you can't concieve a child in the natural way does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to use the technology in modern science to have a child.

P.p.s so what if the child turns out gay? A higher gay population will eventually mean less population growth, = more food for the future.

I spent a lot of ******** time writing my response to this... and SHITTY ******** SON OF A b***h WHORE "BACKSPACE" key got in the way of my posting it... so now all my clever remarks are gone... ********... oh well... i will edit this later on with my response... but just... wait a few more hours till my ******** pissed off mood dies.

3nodding that happened to me before, but in that case I was the one defending gays when someone had posted something intolerent and without sensible reasoning.

What the ******** is it to you if gays have kids, if you're not gay just concentrate on raising your own kids 'straight' if that's what you want them to be.  

[The Seven Deadly Sinz]

It could go either way, being gay isn't just a biological thing, it's also a state of mind, there are many people who are gay, that don't want to be, by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas if someone who was going to biologically be gay, a gay family could either bring that out in the child or as mentioned before falsely give a child the notion the being gay is natural versus being straight. (Don't even argue with me on the natural or not thing.) I personally don't care, though I still prefer the idea of a heterosexual family because I am straight.  

[Zambimaru]

I think they should be able to. If they ever allow gay couples to adopt kids I'd be curious to see if it helped increase the amount of gay people. I personally think that people can be born gay or made guy depending on how their raised.  

[AnonymouZ]

Quote:

You obviously have no desire for children yourself,

Is it THAT obvious?

Quote:

because you don't seem to understand that the instincts of wanting to have a child, nurture it and care for it and become a family are unrelated to your sexual preference.

i agree with both statements. the "i don't understand" one and the "unrelated to sexual preference" one too.

Quote:

What about single parent families? They seem to manage to produce non-gay offspring without the "mother" or "father" figure being there.

It's not a matter of "making" a kid gay, because of the absence of a parent figure. It's more like he's got TWO moms, or TWO dads. to which i refer to antiangel's comment (that was one of the arguments that i wrote and got erased... ********) but with a twist, the kid could grow up or develop the idea that v****a + v****a= natural(not exactly "normal") and thus create a mindset that would probably make the kid gay, BUT, that's NOT the main issue.

Quote:

Being brought up in a household with a gay couple as parents may get a child bullied by intolerent people, I admit, but it's changing. Plus, they'll learn tolerence and have a damn sight better start in life than going off to a care home.

Bullying can happen in both instances, so it doesn't really matter if people are intolerant of the kids parents or absence of them. And depending on what choice anyone makes it's just a matter of OPINION.

Quote:

So, are you saying it's wrong for two loving, caring people to take a child out of a foster care home and give them a good start in life? Or would it be better, perhaps, if the child lived in a home for its childhood and ended up with no permenant family. Think about it.

I have thought about it. Once again, this is a matter of opinion. Kids could have a great life even if they came out of a foster home, or they could end up having a miserable one with BOTH options.

My issue at hand is, if they are gay because of "gay genes" or whatever, and pressume their sexual orientation as natural, then their own bodies and their nature restricts them from having kids... EVER. We all know that no matter how many times one person cums on his partners a**s a kid won't be the result of that. So what i'm saying is, if they are NATURALly gay, then NATURALLY they can't have kids. So why allow the unnatural environment (gay "family") on something that is natural (a gay couple)?

Quote:

P.s. 'natural'? What, like giving straight couples IVF and other fertility treatment, yet not allowing the stem cell treatment required for two lesbians to have genetically combined offspring? (yes, it can be done). You say having kids is something 'natural', but we let infertile straight couples adopt, and having kids is not 'natural' for them.

Don't even get me started on this. I have the same opinion that if they are not able to reproduce then their genes shouldn't be passed on. Of course, you can use technology to get what you want, but then that kid is gonna end up being infertile just as the parents and then they perpetuate the unnatural idea of giving birth to something, always using technology. it's MY opinion that technology is not bad, but when we develop a addiction to it then we might as well "jump upon the sharp swords" as manson (marilyn) says.

Quote:

Just because you can't concieve a child in the natural way does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to use the technology in modern science to have a child.

s**t, i knew i had seen this comment before... err... yeah, just read my response above.

Quote:

P.p.s so what if the child turns out gay? A higher gay population will eventually mean less population growth, = more food for the future.

Once again, this is not my main "issue" so i dont' really care if the kid turns out gay in the end. it was just a complement to my main argument.

Quote:

What the ******** is it to you if gays have kids, if you're not gay just concentrate on raising your own kids 'straight' if that's what you want them to be.

It's funny how the same argument is used by christians when i try to make fun of them and their beliefs.  

[Dread Dionaea]

Modern science is heading towards the decision that homosexuality occurs when a species feels overpopulated and is compensation for the massive influx of young produced. Usually animals turn to homosexuality (and yes, they do. I can cite several references) when they see no benifit to continued breeding.
However when you take into account all of the children constantly being born and abandoned in adoptive services in human society the role of a gay couple takes on a different stance. Having seen many small children with homosexual adoptive parents when I was an assistant at a school gave me a solid belief in the adaptability of a homosexual couple. None of those kids displayed any adverse effects. All of them happy, healthy, and energetic. Other kids never saw them as odd.
In all of the homosexual couples I met that had children they'd adapted their gender roles for the good of the children. There was always a 'mother' and 'father'. The children had one parent for gentle care and guidance and one parent for protection and help. It worked wonderfully.  

[Muffin Pirate]

If gay parents make a child gay, then why do straight parents have gay children?

Being gay is a sexuality, not a choice. Why would anyone choose not to have rights and be oppressed?

Also, I don't see what would be so bad about having another gay child.  

[Ignorance is Your Disease]

One of my best friends has a gay parent (mother dates women), and she's straighter than a laser beam in deep space. She doesn't even like yaoi!
Also, note that it is possible for the gametes of two women to be combined in one egg, it's been tested successfully. So technically, men are obsolete now. ^^
As for homosexual men, well, who else is going to be that adorable and re-decorate our house? Honestly...