Come, witness freedom of speech first hand! America is the BEST COUNTRY EVER! Should homosexual couples raise children?

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81


<< If your wife was a 400 LB Diesal Bitch from outer hell who's main purpose in life was to make your life miserable I can assure you that you'd change your tune in a heartbeat, even if it meant disapointing your father. >>

In that case, she would be the ultimate selfish one... the one who wouldn't even be trying to work it out.

Joe
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com


<< [You know what? Sometimes my marriage has sucked! There have been some very bad times over the years... but you know what?.... when divorce IS NOT AN OPTION, you work it out. Joe >>




lol, yeah ,that's laughable there isn't much to "work out" with an SOB who can't keep his dick in his pants and brings you home a nice STD or two or who drinks or gambles the rent or one of the 101 things that can make marriage a living hell from the female perspective
rolleye.gif
 

Electric Amish

Elite Member
Oct 11, 1999
23,578
1
0


<< Let me remind you that the Third Reich was once considered the most open minded of nations. They allowed euthensia, abortion, and a slew of other "openminded" pratices. But history has shown us where this openmindedness has lead. >>



Open minded? Everyone but white arians should be killed is Open Minded??

amish
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Well first off you should have to have a permit to have children. And another additional one to adopt.

Second off Gays should not be eligible for said permit.

but that's just an ideal world.

 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,200
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com


<< Well first off you should have to have a permit to have children. And another additional one to adopt.

Second off Gays should not be eligible for said permit.

but that's just an ideal world.
>>



shaking my head in disbelief... once you start giving the government permission to grant or deny permission for stuff like this
you can kiss any idea of a democratic society good bye.
 

Hanpan

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2000
4,812
0
0


<<

<< Let me remind you that the Third Reich was once considered the most open minded of nations. They allowed euthensia, abortion, and a slew of other "openminded" pratices. But history has shown us where this openmindedness has lead. >>



Open minded? Everyone but white arians should be killed is Open Minded??

amish
>>



THat was not their mantra from the start. And it was said that Herman Goeing second in command of teh Third Reich was partly jewish. Killing everyone excpet arians was indeed not such an example but the third reich did many thigns before they started exterminating people. These included such openminded things as euthanasia, experiments on the most defenless form of human life etc. All I am saying is it is a slippery slope.

(back in the thirties, only the most openminded accepted euthenasia abortion etc...)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< Never said that... I said SOME, not all. I would say that the circumstances of the divorce should weigh into the adoption process. If if were decided that a person divorced because they weren't really dedicated to the marriage, I think that their dedication to the child should also be in question. SOME divorces, not ALL. >>

Damn, another point shot all to hell!



<< I'm NOT glad that homosexuality is taught as an acceptable alternative >>

What's being taught Joe is that accepting people despite their differences is an acceptable alternative to fear and loathing. It's not being taught as an acceptable alternative for those who aren't Homosexual.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< <<You know, this would end as soon as you admit you have no proof monogamous homosexuality is harmful. You can say "I think it is, but I can not prove it" and I'll accept that. But you state it as if it's fact, and it's anything but.>>

The argument died when you avoided an answer; one-sided arguments are not arguments at all. Not only did your argument die from neglect, but you're spouting off alot of nonsense that has nothing to do with the original argument. We humoured you and answered your questions. We'd like straight answers on our questions.

Plenty of people would like more specific answers on this "Federalist Papers = Jesus Not Divine" statement you've made, too. Or maybe I'm just unable to understand this smoke and mirrors routine you've been running since the outset. You are trying to say that, right? I really don't need your answer about the Federalist Papers, because I've read through them. I'm comfortable with the truth knowing that the founding fathers did not say anything at all about Paul or Jesus in those articles.
>>



:::sigh:::

Federalist papers = freedom is based on individualism, and all freedoms are individual in nature. Do I need to hold your hand any more to explain it? Netopia said individualism is bad. I said it's the very thing our country was founded on. Do try to follow the discussion, please?



<<

<< <<...but I also believe that it should be taken on a case by case basis and if after a thorough investigation it is determined that none of these behaviors (Promiscuity, abnormal social behavior, etc) exist then what the applicants sexual orientation is shouldn't matter.>> >>



Amused One, I want you to take a lesson from Red Dawn. He heard the arguments and diseminated the information therein. Not only that, but he followed the logic of the arguments to their conclusion. No smoke. No mirrors. No name-calling.
>>



Red Dawn said nothing I haven't said repeatedly. You really ARE delusional, aren't you?
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,942
264
126
<<you all argue....have any every know a homosexual? and i dont mean you know of one, or you know this guy who is sorta..... im talking a very close friendship w/ a person whom is gay...for those of you who have not, your arguing out your ass....>>

Yes, a once very close freind of mine is openly gay. We don't talk as much anymore not due to hatred of any type, we just don't live near each other or have many things in common. I was dating his sister for awhile, actually off and on over several years, so you could say I've known him very well for over a decade.

He is very open about his self-named "crisis". When he outed himself to his parents they didn't disown him, but they did just as bad as disown him. His father tries to convert him to leaving his homosexual lifestyle. The real strange part of the whole deal is that his father wasn't religious until his son came out, but now he's a fire and brimstone style of evangelist. His mother doesn't talk to him like she used to and that really upsets him, too. His sister is indifferent, with her own issues to worry about than his sexuality and drug abuse. He's basically been living in a self-imposed exile. He was scared to come out of the closet, but his friends pressured him into it. "Life will be better when you let out the truth," is what they told him. They lied to him. Now he regrets being gay but he's so feminine anymore he feels no help in attracting women. You want to know his first experience with a man? Rape. The man gave him a blow job while he was passed out. Apparently the guy must have slipped him something in his drink. The other guy aggressively pursued him afterwards and told all of his friends that they were hooked up. He tried to kill himself over the whole deal, but luckily his girlfriend at the time found him bleeding to death. She dumped him soon afterwards and so began a whirlwind of crisis for him...

I don't know if thats typical. The curiosity of the whole story made me ask others why they were gay. The one common theme I've heard from gays is that their first experience with men was typically either being raped or it happened while doing hard drugs. After heavy soul searching only did they settle on being gay. I feel sorry that they conclude they are gay under those types of circumstances.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< However, you will not solve those problems by taking away freedoms. >>

Nor will you solve them by handing out priviledges as if they were rights... which is what you seem to want to do.

You know AmusedOne, I don't doubt your sincerity in this debate. From a purely human standpoint, all reference to God removed, I would even be in your camp! I can and do understand your position. I'm not at all sure though that you can say the same of me. For you to understand what and why I feel the way I do, you have to start with the premise that the Bible is the inspired (greek "breathed into") Word of God. That God exists in the person of the Trinity. That anything that God says comes before and ahead of anything contradictory to God. That His standards are the standards by which things should be measured in life... including self-examination which is an area I'm sure I fall short in.

If you can put yourself in that mental frame of reference, you can understand why all of the "scientific" information won't sway me any more than the Biblical account of creation will sway your thinking. You seem to think that people who think the way I do are full of hate and fear... but those (like Red Dawn) who know me would be quick to tell you that hate and fear is NOT what I am all about. Red and I have agreed and disagreed on things over the years, but he, Russ... heck, even Harvey will tell you that I am not a person centered in hate or fear, but that I have a strict belief in a moral code as perscribed by the Bible. While you certainly don't have to agree with my beliefs, it might help you to understand that they are the basis for for why I believe what I believe. I also believe that we {The USA} are not a nation of men, but of laws. You have been discussing "personal rights" and what's fair in your mind, while I have been simply stating what I believe to be true. You have been saying what is fair (which looks to the person) while I have been saying what I believe to be true (which looks only at the issue).

As for myself and homosexuals... I work with several. I've known many. You know the most hatred I've ever seen directed at someone who was "homosexual"? A few years back, I was helping a man in his 50's come out of that lifestyle. He had been terribly abused as a boy... physically and emotionally by his step father... his brothers and sisters belonged to this man, while he was by his mother's first husband. His step father would often tell him what a lovely human he was and how he'd better never find him touching any girls. Meanwhile, teenage boys in the neighborhood had started to molest him and he couldn't tell anyone because it would only validate what his step father had said. So.. he lived a life having sex with other men... meeting them in rest rooms at parks and rest areas for frequent sex, even though he also lived in a couple of "long term" relationships too. When he came to grips with his past and realized that he was the way he was not because of some genetic predisposition, but because of abuse, he decided that he wanted to be shut of that lifestyle.

Now came the hatred towards him..... from other homosexuals! He was berated and maligned. He was screamed at and cursed at! .....Who did he think he was? ....He was lying to himself!.... He'd been brainwashed to thinking that homosexuality was wrong! ....and a lot of other things I cannot post on AT..... but you see, if he could overcome his homosexuality, then it meant that it was possible, and I think that a lot of those people didn't want to have to face the guilt of knowing that they COULD change, that they didn't HAVE to be homosexual... HE was a threat to them.

It's about 5 years now and he's not homosexual anymore.

Joe
>>



Fine with me. If your religion says homosexuality is bad, I'm OK with that. That's your belief. You have every freedom in the world to believe it. However, your religious based belief has no place in law, and it has no place denying others freedoms or opportunities, or dictating how they may live or act.

What if I had a religion that said all Christians were evil, and had no place raising children? Then advocated a law removing children from Christian homes and denying Christian couples the opportunity to adopt children? I have no proof that Christian couples are a danger to children, but darn it, my god tells me they are sinners, must be avoided at all cost and their children taken away.

Do you see? My belief would not be a valid reason to rob you of your freedom and opportunities, just as your religious belief is not a valid reason to do the same with homosexuals.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71


<< And your statement about America not being what she once was. Whats that, a segregated society that openly discriminated against Black sand other minorities, including women? It seems like you think American was a better place 30 years ago than it is now. Hell the America I just mentioned was only 30's years ago Joe >>



yes, liberalism has done wonders for our society.

the problem w/ liberalism is that it also leads to an absence of values. If you have to accept everything and Everyone than you end up w/ Nothing, no values, no ideas, only a hodge podge of BS.

eg. liberalism will tell you that to make english a national language is UNFAIR, unfair to whom? to those you assume are too stupid to learn the language? to those who burn because they can't understand the english speaking firemen? there are numerous examples and reasons why there should be a national language, but liberals and particularly minority liberals will tell you this is UNFAIR. that's just BS.

Some homogeniety is not bad. all difference w/ no standards isn't good. sure, equality has been abused in the past, but legislatively we have gone way overboard.

damn where is tex when you need him.

 

Hanpan

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2000
4,812
0
0


<<

<< And your statement about America not being what she once was. Whats that, a segregated society that openly discriminated against Black sand other minorities, including women? It seems like you think American was a better place 30 years ago than it is now. Hell the America I just mentioned was only 30's years ago Joe >>



yes, liberalism has done wonders for our society.

the problem w/ liberalism is that it also leads to an absence of values. If you have to accept everything and Everyone than you end up w/ Nothing, no values, no ideas, only a hodge podge of BS.

eg. liberalism will tell you that to make english a national language is UNFAIR, unfair to whom? to those you assume are too stupid to learn the language? to those who burn because they can't understand the english speaking firemen? there are numerous examples and reasons why there should be a national language, but liberals and particularly minority liberals will tell you this is UNFAIR. that's just BS.

Some homogeniety is not bad. all difference w/ no standards isn't good. sure, equality has been abused in the past, but legislatively we have gone way overboard.

damn where is tex when you need him.
>>



I agree compeletly. this is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We owe many of our freedoms today to liberalism however when taken to the extreme it can in certain cases become just as restricting as where we came from. A national language is a excellent example...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Yes.

Why not? Will the kids get Homo-cooties or something??

Maybe they'll just grow up more open-minded than most of the people around here.

>>



Now I am just looking to become unpopular but why must we be so open minded. What about those who would feel a desire to have relations with animals.
>>



This has been covered, but I'll explain it again. Animals cannot consent to sex with a human, and sex with animals is harmful to the animal, and therefore animal abuse. Animal abuse is illegal.



<< Should we be open minded there. What about those with inclinations toward theft. >>



Theft harms others, and is therefore illegal.



<< It is open minded to let them do as they please. Let me remind you that the Third Reich was once considered the most open minded of nations. They allowed euthensia, abortion, and a slew of other "openminded" pratices. But history has shown us where this openmindedness has lead.


OK I am asking for it. YOu can flame away. I understand my opinions are unpopluar but if you really feel like venting use pm's and let this thread continue in peace.
>>



Abortion and euthanasia was FORCED in the Third Reich with the sole purpose of ethnic and genetic cleansing. Big difference from voluntary abortion and euthanasia.

Gays harm no one. All the other examples you've shown have been proven to harm others. There is a huge difference.
 

Hanpan

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2000
4,812
0
0


<< Gays harm no one. All the other examples you've shown have been proven to harm others. There is a huge difference >>



This is where we fundementaly disagree. I do believe that homosexual behavior is destructive especially to the indivduals practicing it.
As for the third reich they were seen by many as being forward thinking and openminded. I fear however that this is another debate. However let me assure you that not everything happened in history the way it is explained by american history books. I do not recall who but a famous man once said, the winner writes history the loser must accept it. (or something to that nature)

I will grant that there may have been involountary euthenasia in some cases but I assure you that many people were very much OK with the idea of euthanasia. Ditto for abortion.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71


<< homosexual behavior is destructive especially to the indivduals practicing it. >>



hanpan is there any habit more harmful to the individual practicing it than smoking? should we than ban all smokers from becoming adopters?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< Gays harm no one. All the other examples you've shown have been proven to harm others. There is a huge difference >>



This is where we fundementaly disagree. I do believe that homosexual behavior is destructive especially to the indivduals practicing it.
As for the third reich they were seen by many as being forward thinking and openminded. I fear however that this is another debate. However let me assure you that not everything happened in history the way it is explained by american history books. I do not recall who but a famous man once said, the winner writes history the loser must accept it. (or something to that nature)

I will grant that there may have been involountary euthenasia in some cases but I assure you that many people were very much OK with the idea of euthanasia. Ditto for abortion.
>>



I have no problem with either. A woman's body and my life are no place for laws to dictate what we may do with them. Besides, outlawing suicide is pretty damn silly, if you ask me. What are they going to do, imprison my corpse?

Homosexaullity is NOT inherently destructive. Go back and read the thread. There is no proof that two monogamous homosexuals in a committed realtionship cause harm to themselves or others.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< homosexual behavior is destructive especially to the indivduals practicing it. >>



hanpan is there any habit more harmful to the individual practicing it than smoking? should we than ban all smokers from becoming adopters?
>>



Don't laugh. Smoking has been used to take children from parents in custody cases.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
amused one

the irony is i'm really against smoking. i think it is a filthy, disgusting habit. I think smokers should be cut off from medical insurance, medicaid, medicare. I can't understand why we as a nation abid seat belt laws and yet can't pass laws regarding smoking.

that having been said, i don't believe that it should be legislated.

this thread has been kinda strange. I'm philosophically and ideologically a conservative, laissez faire, minimal govt (state and federal so i'm not a federalist or an jefferson democrat here) but practically and politcally i'm a liberal, vote democrat, for choice (tho i don't think anyone SHOULD do it) for entitlements, because i don't believe that the economy is frictionless.

so if any of you have come to the conclusion that my views are contradictory understand why. :)
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0


<< Don't laugh. Smoking has been used to take children from parents in custody cases. >>



Good, lets go after the fat people next. More than 15lbs overweight you loose your kids and the right to adopt. Then we can go after members of religious cults. Don't want those kids raised in harmful indoctrinating religions. Start with the Mormons, JW's, Menonites and Amish, then move on to the bigger fish. Slowly, gradually take away freedom to not conform with what other people think is morally right/wrong regardless if it harms a child.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<< amused one

the irony is i'm really against smoking. i think it is a filthy, disgusting habit. I think smokers should be cut off from medical insurance, medicaid, medicare. I can't understand why we as a nation abid seat belt laws and yet can't pass laws regarding smoking.

that having been said, i don't believe that it should be legislated.

this thread has been kinda strange. I'm philosophically and ideologically a conservative, laissez faire, minimal govt (state and federal so i'm not a federalist or an jefferson democrat here) but practically and politcally i'm a liberal, vote democrat, for choice (tho i don't think anyone SHOULD do it) for entitlements, because i don't believe that the economy is frictionless.

so if any of you have come to the conclusion that my views are contradictory understand why. :)
>>



You're a ---gasp--- individual! (Now you know why you're in that handbasket)

I don't believe smokers should be cut off of insurance. Just charge them more. As for medicare... scrap it all together. The government has no place in the insurance or charity business.
 

Hanpan

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2000
4,812
0
0


<< There is no proof that two monogamous homosexuals in a committed realtionship cause harm to themselves or others. >>



Firstly I believe not enough work has been done in this area to conclude that. Futhermore just becasue there is no proof something does not make it true.

I will however attempt to justify my point. Homosexuality is not natural and is very taxing both emotionally and physically. For example some disease (penile cancer for example) are seen almout exclusively in male homosexual patients. Futhermore these people often carry heavy emotional baggage. Some of this can be attributed to the way they are treated by society, however this does not account for those that are supported in what they do yet still suffer from similar problems. At it's root homosexual behavior is NOT the behavior of a normal homosapien. Many people have spoken of homosexual animals as an example that it is normal behvior. It it not. In general animals only enter into homosexual unions when there are external forces dictating the behavior. For example caged animals, species that experiences a shortage of females, or in some cases animals willing to show dominace over others resorts to such practices. However it is rare, and, as humans we have accepted that though animals partake in some practices, that does not make said practices acceptable for humans. Take we example animals who eat their offspring. This does not make ist acceptable for humans to do so.


Rahvin Do expalin how overweigh people harm children.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71


<< << Don't laugh. Smoking has been used to take children from parents in custody cases. >>



Good, lets go after the fat people next. More than 15lbs overweight you loose your kids and the right to adopt. Then we can go after members of religious cults. Don't want those kids raised in harmful indoctrinating religions. Start with the Mormons, JW's, Menonites and Amish, then move on to the bigger fish. Slowly, gradually take away freedom to not conform with what other people think is morally right/wrong regardless if it harms a child.
>>



i hope u posted this w/ the knowledge that this is EXACTLY amused ones position on this issue.

my position is a bit ambiguous, even to me. :)
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
hanpan

at some point. are you going to respond to my post regarding differences between male and female homosexuality? to be honest, you are talking almost exclusively about male homosexuality.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146


<<

<< There is no proof that two monogamous homosexuals in a committed realtionship cause harm to themselves or others. >>



Firstly I believe not enough work has been done in this area to conclude that. Futhermore just becasue there is no proof something does not make it true.

I will however attempt to justify my point. Homosexuality is not natural and is very taxing both emotionally and physically. For example some disease (penile cancer for example) are seen almout exclusively in male homosexual patients. Futhermore these people often carry heavy emotional baggage. Some of this can be attributed to the way they are treated by society, however this does not account for those that are supported in what they do yet still suffer from similar problems. At it's root homosexual behavior is NOT the behavior of a normal homosapien. Many people have spoken of homosexual animals as an example that it is normal behvior. It it not. In general animals only enter into homosexual unions when there are external forces dictating the behavior. For example caged animals, species that experiences a shortage of females, or in some cases animals willing to show dominace over others resorts to such practices. However it is rare, and, as humans we have accepted that though animals partake in some practices, that does not make said practices acceptable for humans. Take we example animals who eat their offspring. This does not make ist acceptable for humans to do so.


Rahvin Do expalin how overweigh people harm children.
>>



We've been through this before, read the thread. I repeat, there is no proof, and until there is, I see no reason to deny them any rights or opportunities based on sexuality alone.

As for homosexuality being "unnatural," explain why it has occured at roughly the same rate in every region and culture of the world, even though those regions and cultures had been separated for millennia.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0


<< Many people have spoken of homosexual animals as an example that it is normal behvior. It it not. In general animals only enter into homosexual unions when there are external forces dictating the behavior. For example caged animals, species that experiences a shortage of females, or in some cases animals willing to show dominace over others resorts to such practices. However it is rare, and, as humans we have accepted that though animals partake in some practices, that does not make said practices acceptable for humans. Take we example animals who eat their offspring. This does not make ist acceptable for humans to do so. >>



Now now, lets not go start showing how little you know about animal behavior. There are numerous species that engage in homosexual behavior in the wild. There are species of birds where a male will impregnate a female, wait for her to lay eggs then go find his MALE mate and drive the female off. There are numerous species of primates that routinely engage in homosexual behavior, the most famous of which all ranges of homosexual and pedophilla are practiced among the entire troop. This particular species of primiate I'm speaking of in fact has ample food, nearly non-existant predators and lots of leisure time. They take advantage of that leisure time and have LOTS of sex with all genders.

There are plenty of animals that enagage in and practice homsexual behavior regularly including pair bonding bird species. This behavior is not uncommon at all in the natural world.