Snow Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Originally posted by neo_xero8@Feb 11 2005, 04:42 AM Snow, I would like to inform you that I'm not kidding and ther are literally close to 100 self proclaimed homosexual people in my school, all of which have informed me that they have chosen that themselves for one reason or another. I'd appreciate it if you were jumping to conclusions. If I post on these forums it's just my opinion, but I'm not going to flat out lie. I hate these stupid "gay" threads because they mostly just serve to highlight the bigotry and ignorance of the participants. Your perspective is a case in point. To think that homosexuality is a matter of simply giving into temptation (and "choosing") is an absurdity. I know a little something about temptation, in fact I know a whole lot about temptation. Let me rephrase - I understand temptation in an extraordinarly personal and intense way. There is nothing about about homosexuality that would tempt me. I don't find men sexually appealing. I could no more choose to be homosexual that Mickey Rooney could choose to play center for the Boston Celtics. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humanity do not choose to be straight or gay. Check the research.Sure, there are plenty of wanton people aren't particulary discriminating when choosing the gender of their inamorato du jour but when you say you know 100 homosexuals and that all 100 chose to be so, --- bull, plain and simple, bull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Cal...I agree, yet again!, entirely with your post on this subject. Traveler...You are making assumptions that everyone will choose to live a homosexual life as opposed to a heterosexual life if gay marriage is permitted!! Why do you make that assumption? Do you think that you would automatically change your opinion and choose to be gay tomorrow if gay marriage was allowed? No? Then why should the rest of the world choose to do so? You are either gay or you are not gay...making gay marriage legal and with rights does not 'turn' heterosexuals into homosexuals. I believe that there is nothing wrong with gay couples raising children...there are plenty of children in need of adoption and if a gay couple has been cleared, in the same way as a hetro couple, as being safe to raise a child, then why not? You seem to believe that all gays are rampantly promiscuous, and that they will be performing 'rotic, undisciplined pleasures' every minute of every day..in front of their children even!!! that is soo stereotypical... You also seem to assume that gays wish to marry only for sexual reasons...Can you not see that gay people are just like the rest of us? They are not just sex machines, they have feelings of love, concern for their neighbours and everything else...plus some of the negative feelings that everybody else has too...Please do not be so quick to assume that which you cannot prove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amillia Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Where science ends, God takes over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 I do assume that the only reason gays desire marriage it to legitimize their cognitive reproductive triggers. I do not assume, even a little bit that they are making personal sacrifices so that by disciplining their cognitive reproductive triggers they will create a suitable environment for children. I believe parents must discipline their sexual urges in order to provide suitable environments for children. Where in G-d’s green earth do such nutty ideas come from. GAYS do not desire to have child producing relationships, other wise they would not be gay. The operative word here is cognitive. Does not anyone supporting gay marriage understand what cognitive means in connection to an intelligent species? There are studies my friends concerning cognitive behaviors that become so compulsive that individuals can no longer control their behaviors - even if they want to. There has been some very scary research done concerning the extent “brain washing” can have. And yes my very uninformed friends - this does include the cognitive triggers for reproduction. In fact my friends there are studies that obsessive compulsive behaviors can alter the physiological including neurological of the participant. I see no reason for gay marriage. I do not think some of you understand what the word reason means. There is no reason or any proof to support gay marriage as necessary. The fact that the supporters refuse to supply any reason is not rocket science. There is none. There is reason and proof for relationships that provide and nurture children. That my friends I have proved and no one has argued my proof. But you will not do the same for Gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT as valuable as family (children) based marriage, why force that value by force of law? There has not been one opinion with a single sane suggestion that the two can be equally valuable to society - get a clue. You cannot say that forcing society to honor and revere both homosexual unions and families dedicated to children will not effect society. Such a notion is insane!!! There is no proof for the insane, that is one reason it is called insanity. Until someone can demonstrate and prove that homosexual relationships are as needed as relationships that provide and nurture children I will shout your insanity to force such broken logic by law. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 11 2005, 07:41 PM I believe that there is nothing wrong with gay couples raising children...there are plenty of children in need of adoption and if a gay couple has been cleared, in the same way as a hetro couple, as being safe to raise a child, then why not? Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother?Let me ask a question is it better to chance children to be raised by crocodiles or should we just kill children that are not adopted. My point is that the best for any and every child is to be raised by a loving father and mother. Children should have that as their right. Anything less than that is not really what is best for the child. Trying to select the best of two things that are flawed is not at all what is best. The problem with your logic is that I can always think of something worse for children that what ever it may be that someone whats to do to exploit them. I resent your logic as an attempt to exploit children and your lack of support for children to be in loving homes with a father and a mother.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisRuptive1 Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Just because a couple is gay does not mean that they will fail to adequately raise a child. Two women raising a child is just like two single mothers. A huge percentage of men, nowadays, have been raised by single mothers. What's wrong with 2?What makes a parent a good parent? Obviously society believes that if you can have children then you are a good parent. The state can't take your child away and we dare not say that they are a bad parent, so people who can have kids are considered good parents. People who successfully get through all the challenges and paperwork of adoption get to be considered good parents. Especially ones who aren't able to have kids of their own. You always here someone saying "Just because she can't have children doesn't mean she's a bad parent."The same works for gays. Why should be deny them the ability to raise children? Just because they can't have children among themselves doesn't make them bad parents.Now the whole reason that gays seek to be allowed to marry is so that they can be considered equal. No gay seeks the harsh treatment that we give to gay people. It even gets to the point of physical violence. Who wants that kind of treatment. It's why I believe gayness to be genetic. Therefore they can't do anything about who they are attracted to but the happy ones can deal with it. The sad, and depressed ones do their best to make it go away but it just doesn't happen.A lot of gays are willing to take what is called a civil union. It's just like marriage in every financial way, except it's called something else instead. Why can't we give them the financial rights that married couples do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 12 2005, 07:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 12 2005, 07:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 11 2005, 07:41 PM I believe that there is nothing wrong with gay couples raising children...there are plenty of children in need of adoption and if a gay couple has been cleared, in the same way as a hetro couple, as being safe to raise a child, then why not? Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother? Traveler,Are you for real?You know durn good and well that Pushka made no inference about what a child might or might not deserve. Her post dealt with the qualification of parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 Thank you Snow and DisRuptive for supporting my post...and yes, you are both correct in your statements too. I would not deny any child a LOVING parent, of whatever sexual persuasion, as long as they have passed whatever 'test' is required of them... The greatess sadness to me is to see the NSPCC adverts showing all the poor children (I assume with a male and female parent relationship in their lives), abandoned or abused by those same 'loving' parents/stepparents... It would be a great gain to society if our children, at school, were taught parenting skills and the hardships of the same...I know that in some areas of the UK young girls (teens) are given a lifelike baby doll which they are asked to care for over a weekend. That doll reacts exactly like a baby in that it cries when it is lonely, hurt or hungry...and if it's done a poop (imaginery of course!!). Over the weekend the care of the baby is monitered and recorded in a chip inside of the doll, and then is checked out by a health visitor, or similar, to see just how well the baby has been cared for...has it's head been allowed to drop backwards, has it been shaken vigorously, allowed to be hungry for too long...all sorts of things...I think it would be a useful exercise for all young teens, or from 11 years upwards to practise with these dolls at school under close supervision, then they have a greater awareness of parenting before they become parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindy Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 12 2005, 02:34 PM It would be a great gain to society if our children, at school, were taught parenting skills and the hardships of the same...I know that in some areas of the UK young girls (teens) are given a lifelike baby doll which they are asked to care for over a weekend. That doll reacts exactly like a baby in that it cries when it is lonely, hurt or hungry...and if it's done a poop (imaginery of course!!). Over the weekend the care of the baby is monitered and recorded in a chip inside of the doll, and then is checked out by a health visitor, or similar, to see just how well the baby has been cared for...has it's head been allowed to drop backwards, has it been shaken vigorously, allowed to be hungry for too long...all sorts of things...I think it would be a useful exercise for all young teens, or from 11 years upwards to practise with these dolls at school under close supervision, then they have a greater awareness of parenting before they become parents. Actually, we have those dolls here too. Pretty good deterant for some young people when they realize how much responsibility goes into taking care of a baby...... I can remember before they had these lifelike dolls, and some schools had the "flour baby" program, where the girls (and boys) had to haul around a 5 pound bag of flour (dressed, or wrapped in a blanket) EVERYWHERE they went. If you mishandled the bag, and it sprang a leak, you got docked points or something. I think it was a genius idea that someone came up with to help inform young people of the responsibility of something that can't take care of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Great, Lindy...I thought they probably would have those dolls already in the US...just a shame they aren't made obligatory in sex-ed lessons...:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by Snow+Feb 12 2005, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 12 2005, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Traveler@Feb 12 2005, 07:42 AM <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 11 2005, 07:41 PM I believe that there is nothing wrong with gay couples raising children...there are plenty of children in need of adoption and if a gay couple has been cleared, in the same way as a hetro couple, as being safe to raise a child, then why not? Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother? Traveler,Are you for real?You know durn good and well that Pushka made no inference about what a child might or might not deserve. Her post dealt with the qualification of parents. Then I also disagree with you. I believe a loving father and mother is best for children. Anything else is NOT REALLY BEST. It is something less than best. We could argue what is better, allow children to be molested or feed them to crocodiles. Finding something worse is not an argument for what is best. Sorry but I do not buy such arguments. Are you telling me that we should assume that a family with a loving father and mother is not really what is best for children? Are you telling me that there is something that is 100% just as good?The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 13 2005, 07:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 13 2005, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 12 2005, 01:53 PM Originally posted by -Traveler@Feb 12 2005, 07:42 AM <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 11 2005, 07:41 PM I believe that there is nothing wrong with gay couples raising children...there are plenty of children in need of adoption and if a gay couple has been cleared, in the same way as a hetro couple, as being safe to raise a child, then why not? Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother? Traveler,Are you for real?You know durn good and well that Pushka made no inference about what a child might or might not deserve. Her post dealt with the qualification of parents. Then I also disagree with you. I believe a loving father and mother is best for children. Anything else is NOT REALLY BEST. It is something less than best. We could argue what is better, allow children to be molested or feed them to crocodiles. Finding something worse is not an argument for what is best. Sorry but I do not buy such arguments. Are you telling me that we should assume that a family with a loving father and mother is not really what is best for children? Are you telling me that there is something that is 100% just as good?The Traveler Apparently you are for real, albeit irrational.You are talking about what is best for or what children deserve. Great Traveler. Whoopee. I didn't refer to that. I did refer to your invention of what you imply that Pushka said when in fact she did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Feb 12 2005, 09:32 AM Just because a couple is gay does not mean that they will fail to adequately raise a child. Two women raising a child is just like two single mothers. A huge percentage of men, nowadays, have been raised by single mothers. What's wrong with 2?What makes a parent a good parent? Obviously society believes that if you can have children then you are a good parent. The state can't take your child away and we dare not say that they are a bad parent, so people who can have kids are considered good parents. People who successfully get through all the challenges and paperwork of adoption get to be considered good parents. Especially ones who aren't able to have kids of their own. You always here someone saying "Just because she can't have children doesn't mean she's a bad parent."The same works for gays. Why should be deny them the ability to raise children? Just because they can't have children among themselves doesn't make them bad parents.Now the whole reason that gays seek to be allowed to marry is so that they can be considered equal. No gay seeks the harsh treatment that we give to gay people. It even gets to the point of physical violence. Who wants that kind of treatment. It's why I believe gayness to be genetic. Therefore they can't do anything about who they are attracted to but the happy ones can deal with it. The sad, and depressed ones do their best to make it go away but it just doesn't happen.A lot of gays are willing to take what is called a civil union. It's just like marriage in every financial way, except it's called something else instead. Why can't we give them the financial rights that married couples do? Please allow me to spell this out as simple as I can. Anyone that considers their personal pleasures and does not discipline their cognitive urges deeming sexual gratification (gay or straight) over the need to care and nurturing of children is not qualified as parents to care for and prepared children so that society may survive for future generations. The fact that many in society has lost their moorings and think of themself first is not a reason to abandon children to an abyss of self need first without morals. Why is it so hard to realize children deserve a loving and caring father and mother? Why is personal sexual gratification so esteemed by so many? If you are so sold on doing for yourself then do for yourself. But for children there is something more important thatn self. Are so many of you without discipline? I think I am beginning to understand why over half of the children of our society will not grow up on a home with a loving father and mother. So many really do not think children deserve any such thing - especially if they must make a personal sacrifice.Why - oh why must loving families be destroyed. Can’t you all just do you thing and not worry about families and children? Do what ever it is you want to do and not pretend that it is just as good, valuable, honorable and as needed as families. If you are interested in children - then recognize that loving fathers and mothers is really what is needed. Be willing to do what ever you can to help children as a temporary measure but be willing to teach society at every turn that children need a father and a mother. Society may not always be able to provide what is needed but let us not make what really ought to be - something we refuse to recognize and afferm as what is best.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 12 2005, 02:34 PM Thank you Snow and DisRuptive for supporting my post...and yes, you are both correct in your statements too.I would not deny any child a LOVING parent, of whatever sexual persuasion, as long as they have passed whatever 'test' is required of them...The greatess sadness to me is to see the NSPCC adverts showing all the poor children (I assume with a male and female parent relationship in their lives), abandoned or abused by those same 'loving' parents/stepparents...It would be a great gain to society if our children, at school, were taught parenting skills and the hardships of the same...I know that in some areas of the UK young girls (teens) are given a lifelike baby doll which they are asked to care for over a weekend. That doll reacts exactly like a baby in that it cries when it is lonely, hurt or hungry...and if it's done a poop (imaginery of course!!). Over the weekend the care of the baby is monitered and recorded in a chip inside of the doll, and then is checked out by a health visitor, or similar, to see just how well the baby has been cared for...has it's head been allowed to drop backwards, has it been shaken vigorously, allowed to be hungry for too long...all sorts of things...I think it would be a useful exercise for all young teens, or from 11 years upwards to practise with these dolls at school under close supervision, then they have a greater awareness of parenting before they become parents. For the record I disagree. I believe what is best for children is example. Games may be fun but I believe that growing up in a home with a loving father and mother is much better than weekend experiments. I grew up in a home with loving parents. I saw and experienced a father that loved his wife and children more than his own life and pleasures. I saw and experienced a mother that loved her husband and children more than her own life and pleasures. My father was also a great provider and is still worth millions. He is not in good health and will soon depart this mortal life. But you know what He still loves his wife and children more than his life.I have a covenant to honor my beloved wife and children more than money or pleasure. You may all seek what is pleasure to you but I will not give away or sell my family for a moment of pleasure that will leave one empty. Sorry - your arguments have not convinced me that your theories are better. I will not deny Families or the great need for society to recognize and support them. I know Families work and I do not believe anything else has any real future. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 13 2005, 09:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 13 2005, 09:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 12 2005, 02:34 PM Thank you Snow and DisRuptive for supporting my post...and yes, you are both correct in your statements too.I would not deny any child a LOVING parent, of whatever sexual persuasion, as long as they have passed whatever 'test' is required of them...The greatess sadness to me is to see the NSPCC adverts showing all the poor children (I assume with a male and female parent relationship in their lives), abandoned or abused by those same 'loving' parents/stepparents...It would be a great gain to society if our children, at school, were taught parenting skills and the hardships of the same...I know that in some areas of the UK young girls (teens) are given a lifelike baby doll which they are asked to care for over a weekend. That doll reacts exactly like a baby in that it cries when it is lonely, hurt or hungry...and if it's done a poop (imaginery of course!!). Over the weekend the care of the baby is monitered and recorded in a chip inside of the doll, and then is checked out by a health visitor, or similar, to see just how well the baby has been cared for...has it's head been allowed to drop backwards, has it been shaken vigorously, allowed to be hungry for too long...all sorts of things...I think it would be a useful exercise for all young teens, or from 11 years upwards to practise with these dolls at school under close supervision, then they have a greater awareness of parenting before they become parents. For the record I disagree. I believe what is best for children is example. Games may be fun but I believe that growing up in a home with a loving father and mother is much better than weekend experiments. I grew up in a home with loving parents. I saw and experienced a father that loved his wife and children more than his own life and pleasures. I saw and experienced a mother that loved her husband and children more than her own life and pleasures. My father was also a great provider and is still worth millions. He is not in good health and will soon depart this mortal life. But you know what He still loves his wife and children more than his life.I have a covenant to honor my beloved wife and children more than money or pleasure. You may all seek what is pleasure to you but I will not give away or sell my family for a moment of pleasure that will leave one empty. Sorry - your arguments have not convinced me that your theories are better. I will not deny Families or the great need for society to recognize and support them. I know Families work and I do not believe anything else has any real future. The Traveler Well at least we agree on one thing! We must all put the needs and safety and love of children above our own needs, whether we are male, female, straight or gay...that does not mean that every straight couple raising a child is going to do so...that also does not mean that gay couples are unsuitable to raise a family...the very fact that the gay couples are asking for marital rights and approaching adoption agencies in order to raise a family shows that they are putting their own sexual needs last, and the rights of a child to live in a loving family first...just because what you constitute is a family and what I and some others constitute being a family may differ does not mean that either family is the right or wrong one...they are both as good as each other.You are very lucky to have been brought up by loving parents...many children are not that lucky...I wouldn't say that gay people are akin to crocodiles...what do you suppose they mean to do to the children they adopt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by Snow@Feb 13 2005, 09:05 PM Apparently you are for real, albeit irrational.You are talking about what is best for or what children deserve. Great Traveler. Whoopee. I didn't refer to that. I did refer to your invention of what you imply that Pushka said when in fact she did not. Please enlighten me. What is more rational for chidren than a loving father and mother? What is so irrational about saying a loving father and mother is best for children and everything else consider by society is wrong for society? What is so irrational about expecting the most important qualification of a father than a willingness to be a father or expecting the most important qualification of a mother than a willingness to be a mother.I am sorry if I misunderstand you both but I really thought both of you have said that society does not really need marriages of a man and a woman loving each other in the role of Father and mother, or that society should recognize any thing else as being just as good or as qualified. It appears to me you are bending what ought to be and making excuse for what sometimes happens. I simply do not accept anything to be at all on the same level as a father and a mother providing love in a family. I think it is a mistake to suggest anything else to take that place. I think society has failed when so many think marriage is a right that does not have responsibility to the next generation. I am all for choice, but let's make sure we do not lie about the results of choice. Choosing a homosexual lifestyle will result in not having children. If someone does not understand that it should be explained to them and I do not think such a concept is irrational.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:24 PM I wouldn't say that gay people are akin to crocodiles...what do you suppose they mean to do to the children they adopt? I believe they will teach children that society really does not need families with loving fathers and mothers. That other arrangments are just as good if not better.The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I don't believe that they will do this...I do believe that they will teach the children to be tolerant of people with different sexual orientation than they have themselves, and in a wider way to be non-discriminatory against anyone because of their colour, creed, sexuality or whatever. They would, I assume, teach them that anyone is capable of being a loving parent, regardless of gender or sexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:24 PM that also does not mean that gay couples are unsuitable to raise a family... If you ask the question wrong you will not get the same answer as if you ask it correctly. Are you saying gay couples are to be considered as suitable as a man and a woman trying to have a loving family?Having children is a sacrifice. I am sorry but I do not see the logic that gay couples are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for children. It appears to me that there is something far more important to them than children. I agree that non-gay couples can also be wrapped up in a lifestyle more important to them than children but can we agree that with gay couples it is obvious in their declaration and support for that lifestyle that cannot produce children? Are you telling me gay couples do not understand what kind of relationships provide society with children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:41 PM They would, I assume, teach them that anyone is capable of being a loving parent, regardless of gender or sexuality. How can anyone be a loving parent when they consider realizing their sexual lifestyle more important than children? The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Just because they practise their gay lifestyle...which, within a loving relationship as 'married' would be no different to a male/female practising theirs...in the bedroom, away from the children of course, it doesn't mean that they are putting that lifestyle above the needs of the child they are caring for...if you want to see kinky sex, you need only look to those male/female relationships which you are so ready to claim are better parents than gay couples. Yes I know that gay couples cannot, naturally, produce children...but they can take on our unwanted children, and bring them up in a loving family environment... Yes, a gay couple is just as suitable as a male/female couple for bringing up a child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisRuptive1 Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 How can anyone be a loving parent when they consider realizing their sexual lifestyle more important than children? Holy cow, Traveler. Ask yourself the same question. What makes you fit to be a parent? Do you think that you will be unable to raise children if you realize that you have an instinctual urge to "stick it in"to your wife? I find your question quite hypocritical.Also, it is my opinion, that one cannot successfully inhibit or eschew their sexual urges until they have learned to understand them, work with them, and most importantly, satisfied them.Gays, through our intolerance and ignorance, have felt left out of humanity and therefore only find solace in those who share their feelings and views. They bond. They don't care for the moral ideals of the human race that looks down upon them so they make their own. The explore. They learn. They become as satisfied as man at the end of his honeymoon (I'm sure you married couples know what I mean).You sound intelligent, Traveller, but I see past your mask. You are an intolerant, zealous man and as much as you find gays to be unfit to be a father, I find you to be quite more unfit. I would hate to see how a child that you raise will turn out if you were given any chance to teach him your hateful opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanstress70 Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Traveler in one post: Having children is a sacrifice. I am sorry but I do not see the logic that gay couples are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for children. It appears to me that there is something far more important to them than children. I agree that non-gay couples can also be wrapped up in a lifestyle more important to them than children but can we agree that with gay couples it is obvious in their declaration and support for that lifestyle that cannot produce children? Are you telling me gay couples do not understand what kind of relationships provide society with children?S: Traveler, I don't understand why you think that gays cannot sacrifice their lifestyle for children. It's not like they are having gay sex right in front of the kids. I guess there's always the possibility, but no more so than straights doing it in front of their children! I don't understand why someone's sexuality has to be so important.Traveler in another post: Why - oh why must loving families be destroyed. Can’t you all just do you thing and not worry about families and children? Do what ever it is you want to do and not pretend that it is just as good, valuable, honorable and as needed as families. If you are interested in children - then recognize that loving fathers and mothers is really what is needed. Be willing to do what ever you can to help children as a temporary measure but be willing to teach society at every turn that children need a father and a mother. Society may not always be able to provide what is needed but let us not make what really ought to be - something we refuse to recognize and afferm as what is best. S: I agree with you that the best situation for children is a home with one father and one mother. However, some will never have a chance at that. Is it best for them to live in an orphanage or be bounced around from one foster home to the next? Why not let gays adopt those who would not otherwise be adopted? I apologize if you have already read this in another thread, but it is very relevant to this discussion, so I copied and pasted. Would you please address it when you get a chance, Traveler?OK, yes I will address it. For some children, there will never be anything more than countless foster homes or an orphanage. There are some kids with special needs who, unfortunately, will never be adopted. They may be older kids, minority kids, or have health or behavioral problems.I do not think that gay people should get to adopt babies that someone else would adopt, but I am all for them being able to adopt these 'unplaceable' ones - IF they are in a stable, monogamous relationship and are able to love and care for the kids.I have shared this once before long ago, so ignore it if you've already read it. My cousin, who came to live with us at age 13 or so (so I think of her as a sister), is a lesbian. Her and her partner have been together for 8 years. They are the most wonderful people I've ever known. They give so much to humanitarian causes (money and time), and would help anyone in need. However, some people think that b/c of their sexual orientation, they are bad people. This is ridiculous to me! I don't care about someone's sexual practices. I do care if they contribute to a greater good. My cousin and her partner do!Anyway, they want to adopt, but know that is nearly impossible. So they went through the foster care training. Still, they had a hard time getting a kid placed with them. Oh, they'll place kids with white trash families who just want the monthly foster care check to buy more cigarettes or liquor or whatever... b/c they are heterosexual. That's the most important, right?So, they finally got asked if they would take in a 19 year old girl who was due any day, and her 2 year old son. She is able to be in the foster system till 21 since she has kids. She had gotten kicked out of the home they were living in. Sure, they said. Well, they treated this girl so wonderfully, bought her a car, helped her with childcare, basically took COMPLETE care of the new baby when it was born, b/c the girl had no interest in him.Eventually, the girl got kicked out of the system altogether, and had to move out of my cousin's house. She left the kids with my cousin. They have had the two kids for over a year now. Being a mom, I'm sure you can imagine how attached you can get to a toddler and a baby in that time. AFTER ALL THIS, they still will probably not let them adopt the kids if the mom gets her parental rights taken away, which is likely to happen - unless they lie about their sexual preference. This was told to them by their caseworker. So they continue to keep them, and will as long as they are able to. They are not likely to be adopted though even if taken from their mom, because one is of mixed race, and one is almost 3. They love them like their own... a helluva lot more than their own mom loves them!I think there are some situations in which gays should be allowed to adopt. I understand that it would not be ideal if there are a married man and woman looking to adopt. Also, I would not expect them to let two promiscuous gay lovers adopt.One other thing... 'gay person' does not equal 'pedophile'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisRuptive1 Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 It should also be noted that there is no such thing as "gay sex." Heteros did it long before gays started doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pushka Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Well said Shanstress70 and Disruptive1!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.