*POLL* Homoadoption - Yes or No

[xospec1alk]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Haha - it's never been proven, and it never will be.

It's never been proven that it's not.

haha good one pulse

nik, whats wrong with being exposed to homosexuals? so that they can see that it is as natural as heterosexuals? there values and ethics are the same as any hetero. Besides no matter in what environment a child is brought up in, he will still be able to determine whether homosexuality is "a crock of crap or buy into the bullsh!t about it being genetic"

what is so unhealthy about being brought up by homosexuals? then fat people shouldn't have kids rite? because they would overfeed their kids and cause them to be obese?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

 

[LiekOMG]

I dont' think sexuality should have any bearing if a couple wants to adopt a child. Like a few people have mentioned here already, there are heterosexual couples out there that should be no where NEAR children.

For example, a couple lives two doors down from me. The other day i overheard this young couple (about 25 or so?) fighting on their front steps. I don't know what the argument was about, but the guy was screaming at her using every bit of profanity that i've ever heard at the top of his lungs screaming "get the #@%& OUT!". After she refused he took her by the hair and tried to throw her out the front door. After a while i could hear her scream "don't you dare touch my baby!!" (they just recently had one about a year ago), as i guess he threatened to harm the child. And this isn't the first time i've seen them fighting.

Would you really want a couple like this adopting simply because they are heterosexual?

At the same time i can think of a homosexual couple that I know of that would make 1000 times better parents than the ones described above.
There are *thousands* of children without parents at this very moment who have no one to love and aren't being loved. I think its more important to get them into the arms of loving parents, reguardless of sexual orientation.

 

[Amused]

To support the theory that exposure to homosexuality causes one to be gay, one MUST:

Present a valid study proving that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay. (hint, it doesn't exist because that doesn't happen.)

To support the theory that children of gay parents are traumatized or damaged in some way one must:

Present a valid study showing kids of homosexual parents are more prone to adverse behavior or mental disease. (Another hint, such a study does not exist, because it just doesn't happen.)

To date, I have not seen a valid argument against allowing monogamous gay couples to adopt. When in doubt, you MUST fault on the side of freedom. To oppress people's freedom simply because you have a "feeling" or it offends your religious beliefs IS the epitome of tyranny.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

 

[pulse8]

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

Unless you're a product of gay parents, you have no idea what that child would go through.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

 

[Vette73]

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

So we should not try to show Bigots they are wrong, like racists. We should just act like a Bigot and a Racist instead and not let a good person adopt because of how they were born?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: pulse8

It's a dirty and unnatural lifestyle that someone who's mind is being molded doesn't need to be molded to!!!

Do you actually know any gay men? What's this lifestyle you think they live? Do they all just have big unprotected orgys? Spreading disease around our nation? Where have you gotten your gay lifestyle information from? Have you ever been to a gay bar? Have you ever hung out with gay people?

I have a homosexual uncle
I have a homosexual aunt
I have a homosexual second cousin
I have several homosexual friends

Is that good enough for your satisfaction?

nik

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

 

[Lucky]

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

Was it wrong to expose blacks to hate and ridicule by forcing integration? I dont see your point. There are casualties in every acceptance "movement", but that should have no impact on whether or not the "movement" should be accepted or not.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bunker

you could make the same argument for infertile couples...

Very true, but they could be infertile for reasons other than natural ones so that may not always apply. It's beside the point anyway, he wanted to know the reason gay couples can't have their own children.

well, i think what he was getting at was the reason why that reason would lead to them not being allowed to adopt.

Butt-sex doesn't produce children. Fuzz-bumping doesn't produce children. It's not <EM>natural</EM>, and that's what the gentleman is trying to get across. It ain't natural. The human mind wasn't made to be raised with an anti-heterosexual view. Gay folks are broken hetero's. nik

yes, well sex with an infertile partner doesn't produce children either. and homo doesn't equal anti-hetero.

Right. Infertile couples have already been established as not being able to have kids.

But it's <EM>natural</EM> for a heterosexual couple to have sexual relations and fail at having children because of a physical defect on either side. Being a homosexual isn't a physical defect, it's a mindset. Along with that mindset comes values and ethics that I sure as hell wouldn't want a child to be subjected to without first being brought up in a natural and proper environment after which he can decide for himself whether homosexuality is a crock of crap or buy into the bullsh!t about it being genetic. There's a certain psychological standpoint that a child grows up with if raised by a homosexual couple, and it's not healthy. It's not real. nik

do you make a habit out of talking as if your own opinions are truth?

You're asking <EM>me</EM> this!?

seriously though, what values and ethics are you referring to?

That being sexually interested in a man is okay. That being with a man is okay. That whatever you feel is the right thing to do. That right-and-wrong doesn't apply when it comes to sexuality. I could go on, but I have to run. My lunch is over with and it's back to training for today. :frown: I'll let you guys get back a "logical" conversation now

nik

okay, well since you're still around, i'll reply

i don't see what the harm in thinking that being sexually attracted to, or being with a man is okay. where is the harm? it's not like it's going to increase violent crimes or anything...

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: pulse8

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

Unless you're a product of gay parents, you have no idea what that child would go through.

Oh trust me, I do know. I get made fun of every day at school because I'm short, and I'm a nerd. Imagine what would happen if someone found out that some kid had gay parents...

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bunker

you could make the same argument for infertile couples...

Very true, but they could be infertile for reasons other than natural ones so that may not always apply. It's beside the point anyway, he wanted to know the reason gay couples can't have their own children.

well, i think what he was getting at was the reason why that reason would lead to them not being allowed to adopt.

Butt-sex doesn't produce children. Fuzz-bumping doesn't produce children. It's not natural, and that's what the gentleman is trying to get across. It ain't natural. The human mind wasn't made to be raised with an anti-heterosexual view. Gay folks are broken hetero's. nik

yes, well sex with an infertile partner doesn't produce children either. and homo doesn't equal anti-hetero.

Right. Infertile couples have already been established as not being able to have kids.

But it's natural for a heterosexual couple to have sexual relations and fail at having children because of a physical defect on either side. Being a homosexual isn't a physical defect, it's a mindset. Along with that mindset comes values and ethics that I sure as hell wouldn't want a child to be subjected to without first being brought up in a natural and proper environment after which he can decide for himself whether homosexuality is a crock of crap or buy into the bullsh!t about it being genetic. There's a certain psychological standpoint that a child grows up with if raised by a homosexual couple, and it's not healthy. It's not real. nik

do you make a habit out of talking as if your own opinions are truth?

You're asking me this!?

seriously though, what values and ethics are you referring to?

That being sexually interested in a man is okay. That being with a man is okay. That whatever you feel is the right thing to do. That right-and-wrong doesn't apply when it comes to sexuality. I could go on, but I have to run. My lunch is over with and it's back to training for today. :frown: I'll let you guys get back a "logical" conversation now nik

okay, well since you're still around, i'll reply i don't see what the harm in thinking that being sexually attracted to, or being with a man is okay. where is the harm? it's not like it's going to increase violent crimes or anything...

Yes, and violent crime is the only kind of crime in the world.

It's just the way I believe, man. That ain't gonna change any time soon - and wouldn't change through a BBS in any case.

nik (is sneaking a few posts in from the training room when the trainer isn't looking )

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: Lucky

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

Was it wrong to expose blacks to hate and ridicule by forcing integration? I dont see your point. There are casualties in every acceptance "movement", but that should have no impact on whether or not the "movement" should be accepted or not.

Ok ok, bad comparison. But imagine what the kid would face.

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: bunker

you could make the same argument for infertile couples...

Very true, but they could be infertile for reasons other than natural ones so that may not always apply. It's beside the point anyway, he wanted to know the reason gay couples can't have their own children.

well, i think what he was getting at was the reason why that reason would lead to them not being allowed to adopt.

Butt-sex doesn't produce children. Fuzz-bumping doesn't produce children. It's not <EM>natural</EM>, and that's what the gentleman is trying to get across. It ain't natural. The human mind wasn't made to be raised with an anti-heterosexual view. Gay folks are broken hetero's. nik

yes, well sex with an infertile partner doesn't produce children either. and homo doesn't equal anti-hetero.

Right. Infertile couples have already been established as not being able to have kids.

But it's <EM>natural</EM> for a heterosexual couple to have sexual relations and fail at having children because of a physical defect on either side. Being a homosexual isn't a physical defect, it's a mindset. Along with that mindset comes values and ethics that I sure as hell wouldn't want a child to be subjected to without first being brought up in a natural and proper environment after which he can decide for himself whether homosexuality is a crock of crap or buy into the bullsh!t about it being genetic. There's a certain psychological standpoint that a child grows up with if raised by a homosexual couple, and it's not healthy. It's not real. nik

do you make a habit out of talking as if your own opinions are truth?

You're asking <EM>me</EM> this!?

seriously though, what values and ethics are you referring to?

That being sexually interested in a man is okay. That being with a man is okay. That whatever you feel is the right thing to do. That right-and-wrong doesn't apply when it comes to sexuality. I could go on, but I have to run. My lunch is over with and it's back to training for today. :frown: I'll let you guys get back a "logical" conversation now nik

okay, well since you're still around, i'll reply i don't see what the harm in thinking that being sexually attracted to, or being with a man is okay. where is the harm? it's not like it's going to increase violent crimes or anything...

Yes, and violent crime is the only kind of crime in the world.

It's just the way I believe, man. That ain't gonna change any time soon - and wouldn't change through a BBS in any case.

nik (is sneaking a few posts in from the training room when the trainer isn't looking )

well what types of crimes would increase? it's not a crime to be gay, and i see no reason why it should be. we have too many breeders anyways, not to mention i bet gay people recycle more.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

No. My original point is that the kid would go through a lot of stuff in school, etc.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

No. My original point is that the kid would go through a lot of stuff in school, etc.

as would the blacks have.

let me outline this:

blacks are equal, homos are equal.
blacks can raise children.
homos can't.

does this make sense?

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

No. My original point is that the kid would go through a lot of stuff in school, etc.

as would the blacks have.

let me outline this:

blacks are equal, homos are equal.
blacks can raise children.
homos can't.

does this make sense?

Yes. But little Timmy will end up going through what black kids went through in the 40's and 50's. There is no denying that. The children WILL be discriminated.

 

[mkchambers]

After taking a women's studies course, I have learned a lot more about the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender community and the oppression these people face based on thier personal life choices. There is a tendency to ignore other qualities of a homosexual other than thier sexual orientation. When people focus on "the sex part" of a homosexual's life, which is only a small part of that person's life, they fail to see that homosexuals are still human and still capable of love, hope, sadness, care, etc. When a two men or two women decide to adopt a child, they are automatically looked at based on thier sexuality, rather than their parental abilities, while this would not be the case with a woman and a man. What does sex have to do with the ability to parent? Aren't there enough children out there with no parents at all? Why turn down a loving family to a child based on sex? Love and support are the basics children need and if a homosexual couple can give that to them, then I say go right ahead, I would defend them all the way.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

No. My original point is that the kid would go through a lot of stuff in school, etc.

as would the blacks have.

let me outline this:

blacks are equal, homos are equal.
blacks can raise children.
homos can't.

does this make sense?

Yes. But little Timmy will end up going through what black kids went through in the 40's and 50's. There is no denying that. The children WILL be discriminated.

well probably not to as large of an extent, but yes. however, is that worse than being raised with no parents? i don't think so...

i still dont' understand your position. given identical situations, you would not have told the blacks not to have children, but you turn around and say that homos can't?

 

[Jmmsbnd007]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Jmmsbnd007
No. Sooner or later, someone will find out. Can you imagine the ridicule the kid will get in school when everyone finds out that he/she has 2 dads/2 moms and no mom/dad?

so where does the problem lie?

I myself would be worried about the child and his/her future rather than if the parents can adopt. Think about it. A lot of "normal" people in schools are already the victims of racism, violence, etc. Can you imagine what would happen if someone would find out that little Timmy has 2 dads and no moms? Bullying. Discrimination. Everything black people faced in the 40's and 50's and more.

so would you have advocated that black people not have children, for the same reasons?

No. I'm just saying that they would be the victims of descrimination as black kids had in schools in the 40's and 50's.

right, so why wouldn't this same argument have applied for black people?

besides, which is more harmful, being teased a little in school, or having no parents?

It's not applied to black people because white people now treat them equally, or most of them at least. Trust me, the kid woulden't get teased a little. He would get beaten up, made fun of all the time, etc etc. School would be horrible for him. If I was that kid, I'd rather have a mother and a father, instead of 2 of 1.

you're not seeing my point, why *shouldn't* that argument have been made? 50 years from now, gays will probably not be persecuted either...

You're right. After a while, people would accept it. But do we want to go through all of it all over again?

ok seriously, if for whatever reason, black were being persecuted again, would you really advocate them to not have children?

No. If I was living in the 40's and 50's, then I would be one of those people who viewed blacks as equal beings.

so do you view homos as unequal to heteros? as in one side is better than the other?

No. My original point is that the kid would go through a lot of stuff in school, etc.

as would the blacks have.

let me outline this:

blacks are equal, homos are equal.
blacks can raise children.
homos can't.

does this make sense?

Yes. But little Timmy will end up going through what black kids went through in the 40's and 50's. There is no denying that. The children WILL be discriminated.

well probably not to as large of an extent, but yes. however, is that worse than being raised with no parents? i don't think so...

i still dont' understand your position. given identical situations, you would not have told the blacks not to have children, but you turn around and say that homos can't?

I'm neutral on the actual topic. I'm just worried about how little Timmy will do in school when he's getting pushed around. I think about the children, not the parents.