Child of 2 lesbians speaks...

[MotF Bane]

I firmly believe anyone who thinks its a choice is in fact a homosexual who cant come to grips with it. I know this because no amount of choice making on my part will make me want to sleep with a guy and for someone to actually believe that they MUST have those feelings.

I never made a choice to be attracted to women, I simply am.

So, Texashiker, or any of the others who believe homosexuality is a choice, do you see anything wrong with my statement in this post?

 

[MotF Bane]

And how, pray tell, am I a bigot here? I have no problems with homosexuality, it is you who refuses to accept that it is not a choice. But, if you believe it is a choice, try this question.

Explain to me why someone would choose homosexuality? Why choose an orientation that, for many years, kept you out of the military? Why choose an orientation that prevents you from adopting children through religious organizations? Why choose an orientation that gets you scorned and ridiculed by friends and family? ("Have you tried... not being gay?") Why choose an orientation that may get you harassed, assaulted, beaten, and even murdered? Why choose an orientation that greatly decreases your chances of passing along your bloodline? Why choose an orientation that will prevent you from having a legally acknowledged relationship with your partner? Well, why?

I'm waiting...

 

[Whiskey16]

MofF Bane, the answer for choosing or going as far as coming out of the closet is simple --to be uppity and create a scene.

For those who you are questioning, homosexuals would be best by being good n**g**s and to lay low, know their place, and not dare disrupt the way of things nor poisen the water of a good and moral society.

 

[Newbian]

Just ignore the bigot troller guys.

It's no different then the people here that think blacks are the lower race and nothing you will do will change his mind but being from Texas and with what they say about people from there and him not being a steer one would think he would understand why he is wrong.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Damn, I'm speechless.

 

[Texashiker]

And how, pray tell, am I a bigot here?

Because you can not respect an opinion if it differs from your own opinion.

I have no problems with homosexuality,

I have no issues with homosexuality either.

My issue is with healthy couples making a decision to adopt rather then to have their own children. Healthy gay couples that want to adopt, are no different from healthy man:woman couples who would rather adopt then to go through the trials of childbirth.

Depending on the number of children in the system, they should go to couples that can not have children caused by some kind of condition or illness.

There is a difference between "can not" and "will not".

Gays and healthy man:woman couples that want to adopt have made a decision not to have children naturally. Nobody forced that decision on them. Their decision was not caused by some illness, injury or condition.

 

[Whiskey16]

[And how, pray tell, am I a bigot here?]

Because you can not respect an opinion if it differs from your own opinion.

You, sir, lack fundamental language skills.

Bigotry is most certainly not being intolerant nor challenging of an opinion. You may have an opinion, but by no means are others flawed by reasonably chasticing and condemning of your bigotry.

Depending on the number of children in the system, they should go to couples that can not have children caused by some kind of condition or illness.
...
Gays and healthy man:woman couples that want to adopt have made a decision not to have children naturally. Nobody forced that decision on them. Their decision was not caused by some illness, injury or condition.

By you classifying a group due their sexual persuasion as faulty and unworthy of a status afforded to others, is classic bigotry.

...if still confused, then there are venues to receive basic education.

 

[Texashiker]

By you classifying a group due their sexual persuasion as faulty and unworthy of a status afforded to others, is classic bigotry.

I am not "classifying a group due their sexual persuasion", I am classifying certain individuals based on the decisions they make.

If someone is healthy and able to have children, they should not try to take children away from people who suffer from some condition or illness that prevents them from having children.

There is a difference between "will not" and "can not".

 

[Atreus21]

On what basis should marriage be restrictive at all?

Is there anyone who can lawfully be denied the "right to marry"? Polygamists? Incestuous couples? Whole communes of people?

If the entire basis for gay marriage resides in the "I have a right to marry whom I wish for whatever reason," then on what basis can you exclude marriage to anyone?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If the entire basis for gay marriage resides in the "I have a right to marry whom I wish for whatever reason," then on what basis can you exclude marriage to anyone?

This is not the basis for lifting bans on gay marriage. The basis is gender equality under the law.

1.) John has the right to marry Jane.
2.) Jessica has rights equal to John.
3.) Therefore, Jessica also has the right to marry Jane.

If you do not support same-sex marriage, you do not believe in gender equality under the law, full stop.

 

[Atreus21]

This is not the basis for lifting bans on gay marriage. The basis is gender equality under the law.

1.) John has the right to marry Jane.
2.) Jessica has rights equal to John.
3.) Therefore, Jessica also has the right to marry Jane.

If you do not support same-sex marriage, you do not believe in gender equality under the law, full stop.

I would argue that gay-marriage proponents have used both your basis and mine to support their cause.

With your reasoning I have no problem, but when people start talking about a "fundamental right to marriage," I'd like them to clarify exactly to whom it can and should lawfully be excluded.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I would argue that gay-marriage proponents have used both your basis and mine to support their cause.

I agree that other's have tried to use the reasoning you described. While I don't think the reasoning is terrible, it isn't quite as iron-clad as gender equality.

With your reasoning I have no problem, but when people start talking about a "fundamental right to marriage," I'd like them to clarify exactly to whom it can and should lawfully be excluded.

I think there can be a Constitutional basis for restricting polygamous marriages -- those being the only sensible concern in the slippery slope objections of gay marriage opponents. For example, it would be absurd for a town of 300 people to all co-marry eachother and only file 1 tax return.

I personally wouldn't have a problem making it legal to live in a family of, say, up to 4 co-spouses. Ultimately any limit would be arbitrary, and I wouldn't personally have a problem if they limited it to only 1 either. I do think that there can and should be a limit, however, and as long as everyone is restricted by the same limit, no inequalities would exist.

 

[MotF Bane]

And the Texas bigot still dodges the question. :thumbsdown:

 

[Texashiker]

And the Texas bigot still dodges the question. :thumbsdown:

What question am I being accused of dodging?

I have already stated:

I am not opposed to gay couples

I am not opposed to people who can

I am opposed to people who by their own choice will not

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Are you under the impression that there is some mass shortage of babies going through the adoption system and gay people are stealing them from straight couples? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying...

 

[paperfist]

His last line says it all, "the sexual orientation has had zero effect on the content of my character". It's the sperm that made him what he is, not who raised him.

 

[cubby1223]

Child of 2 lesbians speaks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

What is the problem again?

What's the problem? The thread title is the problem. This is a child of a man and a woman. It is impossible for someone to be a child of 2 lesbians.

You could say a child was adopted and raised by lesbians. But they both cannot be the parents.

 

[JSt0rm]

What's the problem? The thread title is the problem. This is a child of a man and a woman. It is impossible for someone to be a child of 2 lesbians.

You could say a child was adopted and raised by lesbians. But they both cannot be the parents.

I would hope people understand that. But even though we do have some dumb conservatives on this board not one of them misunderstood what the title meant.

 

[HAL9000]

Awesome. I don't think any rational person can disagree with him.