WWYD if your child was gay?

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

Because calling someone a failure for being gay is not the same as blasting religious beliefs or religion in general.

Bashing is bashing...whether you bash them for religious beliefs or because of homosexuality...the bottom line is that you attack them and/or make fun of them. Calling someone a failure for believing in Jesus Christ or of believing in a higher value is just as despicable as calling someone a failure for being gay...it's just that calling someone a failure for being religious here on ATOT is protected while calling someone a failure for being homosexual is bannable. Double-standard straight and evident.

I find is unfair to insult someone for their religion, or for being gay, even though religion is actually a choice. However, the line is drawn when said religion is used to back up their bigotry.

Remember, hating bigots is not necessarily a bad thing. Why should they demand any kind of respect for their back-wards-ass bigoted ideals? They can't.

The hatred or even the simple fear of gays is irrational and full of emotion. There are no facts to back it up. Only their upbringing and/or religious teachings that molded them into the gay hating machines they are. That deserves no respect. In the same way anti-semitics deserves no respect.

Also, to respond to the anti-gay point that gays cannot reproduce:

This is completely untrue, they CAN, their sexual preference doesn't bring them in contact with the opposite sex, though. They're not defective. There have probably been just as many gays in the past 2000 years as there are now, we just hear about it more often because the world view is far more liberal than it used to be.

Honestly, do you think we need more breeders, anyway? The world is far too populated, and we're on the highway of exponential population growth as it is. I think more gays could help that problem.

Fuck, even if every single person was homosexual by the year 3000, I doubt men would have a problem with donating their sperm for artificial impregnation. There are plenty of lesbians who want to have their own kid, too. They just aren't attracted to men, the motherly instinct is still there.

Homophobia is pathetic. Period.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
what could you do? we don't have dna fixing machines or whatever yet.

Would you really need to fix him/her?

Anandtech Moderator hzl

IMHO gayness is an unnatural genetic defect in the most biologically possible sense. Gay people can't reproduce. Period. Thus, if all of the hetero people suddenly vanished, humanity would be dead as a species. This is the definition of unnatural.

That said, I don't believe gay people should be limited when it comes to marriage. Child-rearing, however, is another story. Straight children should not be raised by gay couples. As there is no definitive test for gayness yet, I don't think that gays should be allowed to raise kids. Other than that, they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned.

/flamesuit

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

Also, what's wrong with straight children being raised by gays? In fact, how would you know the child is straight to begin with? From this thread, it seems the mass majority of parents either don't have a clue or turn a blind eye to the situation to begin with.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

 

[pcslookout]

I would not care if my son, daughter, nephew, niece, or whoever was gay. I would just be proud of them standing up for who they really are instead of following the sleep all the time.

 

[pcslookout]

People who are gay can easily adopt if they really want children. Plenty do and I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

but he is right. they can still get pregnatn.

I can't have kids so am i biologically unnatural? i know 2 couples that can not have kids and had to do the vitro thing are they unnatural?

but none of tht matters since yes a gay couple can get pregnant and have children.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: pcslookout
People who are gay can easily adopt if they really want children. Plenty do and I see nothing wrong with it.

i agree.

i would rather see a gay couple adopt them having the child sit in foster care.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

And there are. Ever hear of a surrogate mother? Where the hell have you been living? I thought this was common knowledge.

Google is your friend.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: pcslookout
People who are gay can easily adopt if they really want children. Plenty do and I see nothing wrong with it.

i agree.

i would rather see a gay couple adopt them having the child sit in foster care.

Same here. Hell, I'd rather see Britney Spears' children with a gay couple than with her.

 

[randay]

I'd raise them and make sure they are happy.

 

[deepred98]

I'd treat him like normal and kick him out when he turns 18 just like a normal kid.

That is unless he is a total flaming gay that won't shut up and talks like a girl, then i'd disown him (i guess i'd do the same to a straight annoying brat though... i probably wouldn't make a very good parent)

 

[Sinsear]

Wow; nice read for a Tuesday afternoon at work.

I'll refrain from answering the OP and what I consider a troll post.

 

[dighn]

I'm not a parent so I couldn't realistically say what I'd really do. But in my current mindset I see it as a natural and harmless phenomenon so probably nothing.

 

[Regs]

Adapt.

 

[TheFamilyMan]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

And there are. Ever hear of a surrogate mother? Where the hell have you been living? I thought this was common knowledge.

Google is your friend.

For a straight couple who cannot conceive because one or the other is barren is a perfectly acceptable use of surrogacy. For a homosexual couple who weren't designed to have children is not an acceptable use of surrogacy in my opinion. As some of you like to point out, being gay is a genetic disposition...with that genetic disposition comes the fact you aren't designed to have children. You want to claim that homosexuality is not chosen and you are born that way but you don't want to accept the limitations of that design. You'd rather say, "Just use a surrogate mother to negate evolutionary design. They do it all the time for straight couples where one/both partners can't contribute to impregnation." The difference is, one couple was created to procreate and the other wasn't. Sorry, Jules, you can't change evolution.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

And there are. Ever hear of a surrogate mother? Where the hell have you been living? I thought this was common knowledge.

Google is your friend.

For a straight couple who cannot conceive because one or the other is barren is a perfectly acceptable use of surrogacy. For a homosexual couple who weren't designed to have children is not an acceptable use of surrogacy in my opinion. As some of you like to point out, being gay is a genetic disposition...with that genetic disposition comes the fact you aren't designed to have children. You want to claim that homosexuality is not chosen and you are born that way but you don't want to accept the limitations of that design. You'd rather say, "Just use a surrogate mother to negate evolutionary design. They do it all the time for straight couples where one/both partners can't contribute to impregnation." The difference is, one couple was created to procreate and the other wasn't. Sorry, Jules, you can't change evolution.

Never a shortage of down home wisdom from The Family Man.

Anyway, I would totally just slap the gay outta him. Begone gayness! The power of Christ compels you!

 

[IAteYourMother]

how can you not care if your child was gay? At the very least I would be sad because it would mean my child would have a much more difficult road ahead of him/her.

 

[AVAFREAK182]

My brother is gay

 

[jandrews]

Originally posted by: AVAFREAK182
My brother is gay

haha posts like this just crack me up, it would be like if someone just posted 'i like sharks' its like...ok and??

 

[imported_Imp]

Probably be "surprised" for a week, then let it go. Nothing you can really do about it anyways that won't screw up your relationship with the kid.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

I don't agree with the mod crackdown on this topic but give the poor persecuted Christan shtick a rest. Religion threads are always a lightning rod of controversy whenever they pop up in these forums, this is to be expected. You are (or should be) capable of defending your position so no special protection should not be granted.

Another thing you should note, hzl has a friend who is gay. Personally, I find hzl's reaction a double standard. No one can say anything less then positive about gays without being warned with a ban stick?

And don't bother bringing up the special protection factor. Any subject can be just as sensitive as any other.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: jandrews

Originally posted by: AVAFREAK182
My brother is gay

haha posts like this just crack me up, it would be like if someone just posted 'i like sharks' its like...ok and??

My boyfriend is gay, but I'm not. Whenever we're having sex I have to remind him "no queer shit man!"

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Just because you're gay does not mean you can't reproduce. It's not as if we don't have in vitro fertilization.

w...t...f...

Did you completely sleep through sex-ed? Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce according to natural reproductive means. Homosexual = partnering with the same sex. Partnering with the same sex = no way to conceive children under current evolutionary constraints unless medical intervention is utilized in the form of test-tube, in-vitro with a third-party, et al. Since it takes 1 man and 1 woman, there would have to be women and men out there who just want to become breeding grounds and breeders so that homosexual couples can enjoy child-rearing.

Until evolution deems it so, homosexuals are not meant to reproduce hence the viewpoint some people have that homosexuality is biologically unnatural. Not my viewpoint exactly but a viewpoint out there nonetheless.

Because male ejaculation is a difficult thing to achieve? First, homosexuals can reproduce through natural means especially considering how easy it is for men to get aroused. It doesn't take much and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Hell, you don't even have to go through full intercourse. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out how mankind would be just fine if were only left with homosexuals. Secondly, the only reason this question was brought up was in the case where mankind was at risk of extinction. Do you think at that point, people are going to be worried about being categorized as breeders? Lastly, homosexuality is evident throughout nature. The natural world consists of creatures that don't even require mates, creatures that can change sexes, and creatures who are habitually homosexual in behavior. To argue that it's not biologically natural is a flawed viewpoint.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

I don't agree with the mod crackdown on this topic but give the poor persecuted Christan shtick a rest. Religion threads are always a lightning rod of controversy whenever they pop up in these forums, this is to be expected. You are (or should be) capable of defending your position so no special protection should not be granted.

Another thing you should note, hzl has a friend who is gay. Personally, I find hzl's reaction a double standard. No one can say anything less then positive about gays without being warned with a ban stick?

And don't bother bringing up the special protection factor. Any subject can be just as sensitive as any other.

I know one or two gay people myself.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan

Originally posted by: fatdragondzc
sleep on it and wen i wake up hopefulli its all a dream. if not, time make a new baby and start from scratch. label this one failure and send it off.

We have many good, contributing members who happen to be gay.
You may not continue to post such verbal abuse on our forums.
Doing so again may be reason to suspend your posting privileges for an indefinite period of time.

Is that clear?

AnandTech Moderator hzl

Not trying to call a mod out here, but please explain why ATOT also has many good, contributing members who happen to be Catholic, Christian, et al and they suffer worse abuse at the hands of many agnostic, atheistic and anti-religion posters? Why are the anti-religious posters not sent on vacation/banned or at least held to the same standards mods like holding someone who posts something regarding anything but positive responses regarding homosexuality? I mean ffs, a topic was locked because someone called people who think Tony Romo is good "Tony Romo-Homo's" (which is quite fifth-grade but made me chuckle regardless) but I've seen more than one post bashing/flaming/attacking religious beliefs that had mods posting within...

I don't agree with the mod crackdown on this topic but give the poor persecuted Christan shtick a rest. Religion threads are always a lightning rod of controversy whenever they pop up in these forums, this is to be expected. You are (or should be) capable of defending your position so no special protection should not be granted.

Another thing you should note, hzl has a friend who is gay. Personally, I find hzl's reaction a double standard. No one can say anything less then positive about gays without being warned with a ban stick?

And don't bother bringing up the special protection factor. Any subject can be just as sensitive as any other.

I know one or two gay people myself.

So do I, what's your point?