That's the same argument as being born infertile. Obviously nature chose for you to be that way and thus you weren't meant to be a breeder. Sorry, you're out of luck. Fact of the matter, technology and medicine are the two major contributing factors in the extension of human lives. You might as well say people who have weak immune systems should not have preventative medicine administered to them because nature chose for them to be bred out of existence. How about the person born with a handicap? Guess we should toss them out there and hope they can fend for themselves. Thus, by being sentient creatures we have created measures to surpass biological constraints. It makes no sense to argue that gays aren't meant to reproduce in the time context in which you live.
That's the same argument as being born infertile. Obviously nature chose for you to be that way and thus you weren't meant to be a breeder. Sorry, you're out of luck. Fact of the matter, technology and medicine are the two major contributing factors in the extension of human lives. You might as well say people who have weak immune systems should not have preventative medicine administered to them because nature chose for them to be bred out of existence. How about the person born with a handicap? Guess we should toss them out there and hope they can fend for themselves. Thus, by being sentient creatures we have created measures to surpass biological constraints. It makes no sense to argue that gays aren't meant to reproduce in the time context in which you live.
I agree with you as well. I have nothing against hzl but I should be able to express my disagreement with homosexuality if thats what I want to do.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,609
- 46,271
- 136
I happen to be one of those people....
I know hzl has a gay friend and while her heart was in the right place I don't agree with the call. Religion is the least deserving of getting the kid gloves given its scope of possible topics and history. Not to mention the fundamental difference (that any rational person can acknowledge) between an inborn characteristic and a learned one.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,578
- 982
- 126
What the hell does this have to do with evolution?
I thought we were talking about gay couples having children so I pointed out a way that they could. Who the hell are you to say whether or not surrogacy is an acceptable option for gay couples? I've got news for you, they already do.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
it doesn't or else more punk rock people would do it. the ones that do are bi, and if they are more likely to admit it because they are punk, well that might throw some people off.
if deep down you really believe in your heart that you can choose, well i have some bad news for ya, you are bi hehe. core desire isnt learned, no one learned to be hungry.
I wouldn't care if my child was gay, all though it would probably make life harder them then if they were hetero. There is nothing wrong with being gay but in our society it is a much harder life style to live and probably wouldn't want them to be gay because of the extra crap they have to take from people who are jerks. There are a few out of the closet gay kids in my school and they are no different than everyone else. One who just graduated was head of the cheer squad and another pwns everyone at gears of war, but the shit they have to take just is amazing and I thought I took a lot of shit for being a nerd.
Edit: if any of you are wondering I am a christian
Edit: if any of you are wondering I am a christian
Making the statement that gay people should be killed ("post birth abortion") is not acceptable, regardless of your feelings about homosexuality. This thread is not against forum rules, so it has not been locked. In the past, we may have locked it. Under our present approach, we give you the benefit of the doubt that you can discuss something like this without violating our terms.
This is not a hard one, folks. Advocating killing off gay people is not a gray area, regardless of what any of us think about the subject of homosexuality.
This is not a hard one, folks. Advocating killing off gay people is not a gray area, regardless of what any of us think about the subject of homosexuality.
What about killing off your own offspring, in a tongue-in-cheek manner?
I guess the question here is, who is the victim? And why is this being made about "killing off gay people". Is killing off straight people ok? If my fictitious baby is straight its ok to say I'd ghost them off the peer w/ a brick on the gas pedal?
Well, it's OK to talk about killing people if they're fat, or tailgating you, or conspiracy theorists, or RIAA, or Iraqis, or Christians, or rednecks, or smokers, or computer novices, or racists, or people who drink and drive. So clearly this IS a grey area. But it's not OK to joke about gay people, which means they must be on a different plane than the rest of us.
I for one welcome our well-groomed queer overlords, and remind them that as a valuable internet personality, I would be invaluable in rounding up the straights to toil in their massive underground acid mines...
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
What the hell does this have to do with evolution?
Do you have no reading comprehension at all? What do you mean you are confused as to what this has to do with evolution? According to most, if not all, of the homosexuals on ATOT, they were born that way; i.e. evolution dictated they be born the way they are. We were talking about how gay couples could have children and I stated they could not. It's not hard. Until a man's colon somehow begins holding an egg and creating a vessel for life, a male homosexual couple CANNOT have children. Until a woman can produce both sperm and egg, a female homosexual couple CANNOT have children. They have to employ the use of another woman's and/or a male's sperm and utilize someone as nothing more than a breeder.
And you ask who the hell am I to say that surrogacy is not acceptable for gay couples...that's my opinion. I say it is not an acceptable use for surrogacy and is not what surrogacy is intended for. Again, I state that if you want to be gay, then accept your homosexuality with all the pros (your wardrobe doubles if you are the same size as your partner, etc) as well as all the cons (you were born that way as you state and, therefore, cannot have children). Accept the fact that until some giant evolutionary leap occurs and men start bearing life and women start reproducing asexually, homosexual couples were not designed to have children. Be homosexual, live your life inclusive of everything that goes along with it.
Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
What the hell does this have to do with evolution?
Do you have no reading comprehension at all? What do you mean you are confused as to what this has to do with evolution? According to most, if not all, of the homosexuals on ATOT, they were born that way; i.e. evolution dictated they be born the way they are. We were talking about how gay couples could have children and I stated they could not. It's not hard. Until a man's colon somehow begins holding an egg and creating a vessel for life, a male homosexual couple CANNOT have children. Until a woman can produce both sperm and egg, a female homosexual couple CANNOT have children. They have to employ the use of another woman's and/or a male's sperm and utilize someone as nothing more than a breeder.
And you ask who the hell am I to say that surrogacy is not acceptable for gay couples...that's my opinion. I say it is not an acceptable use for surrogacy and is not what surrogacy is intended for. Again, I state that if you want to be gay, then accept your homosexuality with all the pros (your wardrobe doubles if you are the same size as your partner, etc) as well as all the cons (you were born that way as you state and, therefore, cannot have children). Accept the fact that until some giant evolutionary leap occurs and men start bearing life and women start reproducing asexually, homosexual couples were not designed to have children. Be homosexual, live your life inclusive of everything that goes along with it.
The word "can" implies ability, and they are biologically able to breed.
If you are refusing to give homosexuals your consent to breed, you should use "may" and "may not".
Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
What the hell does this have to do with evolution?
Do you have no reading comprehension at all? What do you mean you are confused as to what this has to do with evolution? According to most, if not all, of the homosexuals on ATOT, they were born that way; i.e. evolution dictated they be born the way they are. We were talking about how gay couples could have children and I stated they could not. It's not hard. Until a man's colon somehow begins holding an egg and creating a vessel for life, a male homosexual couple CANNOT have children. Until a woman can produce both sperm and egg, a female homosexual couple CANNOT have children. They have to employ the use of another woman's and/or a male's sperm and utilize someone as nothing more than a breeder.
And you ask who the hell am I to say that surrogacy is not acceptable for gay couples...that's my opinion. I say it is not an acceptable use for surrogacy and is not what surrogacy is intended for. Again, I state that if you want to be gay, then accept your homosexuality with all the pros (your wardrobe doubles if you are the same size as your partner, etc) as well as all the cons (you were born that way as you state and, therefore, cannot have children). Accept the fact that until some giant evolutionary leap occurs and men start bearing life and women start reproducing asexually, homosexual couples were not designed to have children. Be homosexual, live your life inclusive of everything that goes along with it.
All your surrogate mothers are belongs to us.
I did not make the comments above to open debate. I made them to close it, by explaining that the rule is clear and will be enforced.
I understand why some people have questioned our position earlier in this thread, and we have let that go, given the circumstances. From this point, we expect you to handle any questioning of mod decisions in the appropriate manner, and not here in this thread. If you believe any of us have acted inappropriately or inconsistently, there is a forum to express that concern.
There will be no further discussion of mod decisions in this thread. Thank you for your understanding.
Rio Rebel
Senior Moderator
I understand why some people have questioned our position earlier in this thread, and we have let that go, given the circumstances. From this point, we expect you to handle any questioning of mod decisions in the appropriate manner, and not here in this thread. If you believe any of us have acted inappropriately or inconsistently, there is a forum to express that concern.
There will be no further discussion of mod decisions in this thread. Thank you for your understanding.
Rio Rebel
Senior Moderator
TehMac
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2006
- 9,976
- 3
- 71
I would be regretful, but I would still love him/her: God gave them to me as a gift, and I shouldn't question God's authority. In my falliable being, I would be disapointed. But I'd be sure to have other children, because I want to see my grandchildren.
Originally posted by: Turin39789
Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
What the hell does this have to do with evolution?
Do you have no reading comprehension at all? What do you mean you are confused as to what this has to do with evolution? According to most, if not all, of the homosexuals on ATOT, they were born that way; i.e. evolution dictated they be born the way they are. We were talking about how gay couples could have children and I stated they could not. It's not hard. Until a man's colon somehow begins holding an egg and creating a vessel for life, a male homosexual couple CANNOT have children. Until a woman can produce both sperm and egg, a female homosexual couple CANNOT have children. They have to employ the use of another woman's and/or a male's sperm and utilize someone as nothing more than a breeder.
And you ask who the hell am I to say that surrogacy is not acceptable for gay couples...that's my opinion. I say it is not an acceptable use for surrogacy and is not what surrogacy is intended for. Again, I state that if you want to be gay, then accept your homosexuality with all the pros (your wardrobe doubles if you are the same size as your partner, etc) as well as all the cons (you were born that way as you state and, therefore, cannot have children). Accept the fact that until some giant evolutionary leap occurs and men start bearing life and women start reproducing asexually, homosexual couples were not designed to have children. Be homosexual, live your life inclusive of everything that goes along with it.
The word "can" implies ability, and they are biologically able to breed.
If you are refusing to give homosexuals your consent to breed, you should use "may" and "may not".
Indeed.
I could choose to nail another guy, but I don't because I'm attracted to women by biology.
Gays choose not to do it with the opposite sex because they're attracted to their own sex by biology. The organs still function.
I can't believe we need to even point this out to TheFamilyMan.
Why should it matter if you feel uncomfortable with it, anyway, TheFamilyMan? It's not your choice, you're not fighting to protect any kind of sanctity of family or marriage. They're not harming you, or the kids they want to raise as their own.
What's your real problem?
I see you talking a lot, but not a whole lot is actually being said. It seems almost like you're trying to cover up your own blatant fear and hate for gays by using more flowering language. Much in the same way I've seen others do, time and time again.
Am I wrong?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter