I don't like gays or homosexuals. Not them so much as what they do, in fact I even sympathize with them a little because I would hate to feel like I needed to do something that only got me an evil glare from half the U.S. populace, but at the same time I do that anyways. I've looked across the internet up and down, gathered facts, checked out statistics, and yes, gay people DO suffer tremendously from STDs, and even though these diseases do not STEM from homosexuality, it says a great deal about them as a community when they keep getting them, and they are supposed to be a lot more educated than that and even leading the psychological revolution. But that's not the real issue. The reason I don't like them is actually more along the lines of this.

It's that they have sex without having children. Oh! I know what you're going to say! "What about adoption!?!? Huh? Don't you think they should be able to raise children?"

And for me the answer is "Nope!" And do you know why?

Well, mentally, the first reason is women are automatically more capable in areas that men are not. (They tend to be more perceptive of other's emotions for example, and also more nurturing.) Yes, not all women are the same, and guys and girls DO act a lot more like the other gender than their own at times, but THAT'S OKAY because back at the core they still fall into their original categories, and are great a the jobs they are best equipped to handle. What I don't get is how people can attack the male and female identity without getting in huge trouble for. . . telling guys and girls that they are actually pretty much the same. . . in fact, I think that years of history, culture and (if you believe in it) evolution would go against that. I mean yeah, if men and women were not different, I'm sure at least half the cultures out there would treat it that way, but we consistently see a running theme 9 out of ten times where women are raising children, not as adept for combat, ect. And these really aren't bad things (I. . . hope the people who support women's rights and enlightenment wouldn't tell them that traditional gender roles are not only somehow lies, but also holding them back or actually negative in finding who they should be!) I mean, as an author, I can tell you that writing men and women is lot's different. Same for drawing them too actually. (Shoulder placement. . . breasts. . . average height. . . even head shape.) And voicebox wise they certainly sound different. Anyone want to explain to me why this is a. . . bad thing?

But yeah, I don't EVER see gay parents being as good natural parents as two straight parents are. And yeah, with as crappy as parents have become nowadays? It wouldn't surprise me if you could find really dedicated gay parents WHO WERE BETTER than two bad straight ones. But that still doesn't mean gay parents are automatically better or even that they are the solution. Anyone who has a real mom knows. The same is true if you have a real dad, and yes, we do need to do something about how little parents care about their children nowadays.

For another reason I don't really like or respect gays. . . it's that I see them as kindof selfish.

"What!??! they can't help it! How DARE you suggest such a thing!"

Well I'm sorry! But when your body is. . . designed to work a certain way. . . and you kindof. . . use it the opposite. . . and then the fact that the rest of us will likely have at least one or two kids to push on society and a gay person will have none (and skip the 9 month pregnancy process and breastfeeding, which I would say is important in establishing the bond between mother and child.) It's not only a cop out in the hardest starting part, but the guys don't even have to worry about getting pregnant or anything. True, birch control does exist, ect, but for the most part about half of Americans do have children, to where as the other half do want to have kids some day between the ages of 18 and 40. (only about 6% don't want to have kids at any time in their life, and yes, I don't think of them in the best of light, but I can understand financial hurdles and other reasons that people should consider.)

So like. . . my parents worked hard to raise me. Same for their parents and onward. When you have children you establish a community legacy and your memory lives on in a way that even famous people who are childless cannot do so. It's kindof a pet peeve of mine, or a very legitimate reason to feel slightly angry towards an entire group of people that. . . claims they can't help the way they feel, but also cut out of the HARDEST CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUTURE OF YOUR OWN PEOPLE!

I mean. . wow! Think about that! It's a heavy responsibility, and. . . I'm supposed to not even bat an eye when two men are just going to have sex the rest of their life. . . not make more money to support other mouths ect? No. . . I find it suspicious and just like in war and the draft. . . I do not like to see other people getting off for free. Should the next generation be all of our responsibilities, and shouldn't our children get everything they need? (Parents of two genders?)

The last thing I don't like about homosexuality is. . . I really doubt that they could be truly happy. I call it psychology. Writing and looking into how men and women compliment each other has really made me appreciate it. Yes, some people are different, but we still have the same organs and general makeup. I've never heard anyone try to say that some kids like having sex underage just because they are "different". If you're not in Pakistan you'd probably be pretty horrified by it. How can people in such an unnatural union be healthy and happy. . . psychologically!?!? It just doesn't make sense to me, so that's my thoughts on the topic, now I want to hear yours.

Post away~

Well, first of all i'm not sure why you had to post another homosexual rant thread, come on man we get it.

I'm pretty neutral towards homosexuality. I don't really believe in it but if it makes people happy and doesn't harm anyone then why should i interfere? I'd comment on the STD discussion you keep bringing up but Zlinq already rekt you on that so I'm not gonna bother.

I already brought up the reason for why the homosexual community is so affected by STDs. You seem to agree at this point that homosexuality is not inherently more dangerous. However the logic of trying to protect homosexual people by discouraging them from being homosexual makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot change a person's sexuality, you can only suppress it. That's more likely to drive people to inflict self harm and just overall be far more damaging to their health and development than letting them be who they are.

It also comes down to that at some point we have to let people make their own choices, we can only educate them on the risks. We already let people make their own choices when it comes to things that are actually proven to be dangerous and where individual choice ultimately plays the final role (such as with smoking, drinking, overeating etc). So to focus your attention on something that isn't even dangerous but merely a risk factor does not make much sense.

Physical and emotional differences exist between the two genders. No one is arguing that this isn't grounded in biology. However many of the stereotypes or norms associated with each gender are not (for example that women should be in the kitchen or that men shouldn't show emotion) and these ultimately stem from a society where these gender roles are accepted as complete truth. The whole point is that we need to look at everyone from an individual level in stead of judging them based on gender because that is the only way to strive for objectivity. Most people who want to achieve gender equality don't mean that living in accordance with gender roles should necessarily be discouraged, but that it shouldn't encouraged either. Everyone should be encouraged to live life how they want to live and working with something that they enjoy. People pursuing career paths out of interest rather than being pressured into something by societal norms is overall going to be a lot more beneficial both for people as individuals and society as a whole.

I don't really understand your rationale here, because homosexual people might not have children that makes them selfish? Since when is it anyone's duty to have children? People are free to do what they want. It's not like the world population is in in a state of free fall where society is dying out. If anything by that train of thought, having children of your own in stead of adopting would seem like the selfish thing to do. Because then you're bringing more people in to the world when we live in an environment with finite resources, leaving less for others.

This is exactly why gay adoption (or any sort of adoption) is highly beneficial to society. While you can argue that having straight parents is ideal the truth of the matter is that there's never going to be enough straight couples for all the children in the world regardless. Many give up their children either voluntarily or from being forced into it because of their surrounding conditions. Having two gay parents who love a child as their own is going to be miles better than a child having to grow up in an orphanage or being stuck with neglectful parents. Parents caring for their child is the single most important factor in raising children.

It again comes down to the individual, or the individual couple in this case. Some gay parents are likely to be more loving than most any straight parents and having parents that stray from the common family dynamic isn't harmful to development. I was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs to support me, having her as a role model I would say is largely what motivated me and continues to motivate me to actually make something of myself. Problems that arise from having same sex parents typically do so because of other people judging you for it not because it results in some sort of suffering in a child.

If there's anyone I could understand you being angry with, it's people who voluntarily give up/neglect their children. Those are the ones who are burdening society. Getting a child that could've easily been prevented through the use of a condom, or an abortion (at least in most parts of the western world) then refusing to own up to their responsibility. Ultimately you're never going to understand how homosexual people feel, because you are not homosexual. The whole reason that you feel that "men and women compliment each other" is because you have a straight predisposition that enables you to feel that in the first place. Even if it may not be for the reasons you want them to be, why does it matter if people are happy?

Sword legion : I had no idea you felt that way sword,did you know im bisexual? More on the guy side too,I get that you can't quite understand it but I can tell you that a lot of people are pretty happy about it but are shunned for being so because of their genetic make-up,when we are in the belly of our mothers we are all female until we begin to form more and during that transition to male, sometimes some chemicals get a little mixed up,estrogen and testosterone at the same time for bisexuality and mainly estrogen for homosexuality,nobody chose to be this way,but their stuck like this and while they may get shunned for it they don't care because they can be happy with their mate,I can tell you from personal experience the passion in that type of relationship is out of this world,to be so charming that you can date the same sex,bring out those feeling that people dont quite understand,you can make them understand,and they love it,some dont though and reject it because they dont wanna get destroyed by the bulldozer that is society,and because of this transition I mentiond earlier you have the possibility to have motherly instincts,you dont need a male and female to raise a child,a dominant and submissive is the basic parenting combination no matter what sexuality you are,a dominant arent to teach the kid dicipline and lay down the law keeping the kid and check and a submissive teaching the kid other things nuturing and caring for the child,it dosnt sound too different does it? Thats my opinion with some facts spreas in there Im fine with you believing what you do but just know sword what I've told you,keep it in mind.

Well you and I have already talked about it before on FB but now others can see my opinion on here too. I am perfectly 50/50 split on this discussion since "Yes" I don't really care whom you love, why you love them, or who they are. It's not affecting "my" love life, "my" personal standard of living, "my" personality or anything...so why should bother to make a big deal about it? I've met just as many pricks in my life that are straight as I have ones that are gay/lesbian/bisexual/etc. You live like a squirrel with the nuts, or a female farmer with their peaches, I'll live with bee to the honey.

HOWWWEVVVVERR!!!

It's been obviously clear that some things are going a bit too far now, to the point where seems like are trying to have the exact opposite thing happen now wherein straight people and everything should be demoralized? Like I said I've never been against it so why would I get that punishment? I've had it happen before where I can't talk about anything homo/bi since I'm straight and a douche and I just wouldn't understand anything. Also...seeing a lot of people just "using" their preference for personal gain instead of just being whom they are. Why do we have whole bathroom scenario? Why do people think they should "deserve" something more for being gay/bi/lesbian? Why are so many people trying to have "rights" when seems like are trying to trample on our own? You're still just a normal person, you don't get a free bag of popcorn and soda just cause are different....yet that's how I see many people acting today... "WE DESERVE SOMETHING!!!". It's just like people complaining about traveling/immigration, I'M SORRRY but moving somewhere IS NOT a "right" I don't get where people think are giving special permission to be wherever they want? IT'S A !PRIVILEGE! to be somewhere not a docturned right.

Also seems like are just printing money "that don't have already" for benefits or "deservings" for said couples/people. It's like...NO you shouldn't be given a free pass or anything to something just cause of your "preference". You should get to live like rest of us...NORMALLY no extra benefits or what not. Then are things like being a guy "but FEELING MORE/CONSIDERING SELF more like a woman" so should be allowed to do as please. I'm sorry but until I see a medical change *pulls pants out* until I see "pikachu" or your "jigglypuffs" in place....I gonna consider you how you are.

That's all have to say....


Zlinqx : Think people should just be wiser and think "ok do I really wanna do this and RISK having a child" anyway...since protection can only go so far. If you're not willing to own to your RESPONSIBILITIES...don't go rushing in for home plate. Ties into my problem of abortion where think many people "misuse/break" it just cause they didn't think of consequences and don't wanna be burdened with it. You done f* up son but that's your f* up son. Deal with it.

I work for a gay bar in Houston, and I can tell you that the vast majority of gay guys that I deal with don't believe it is positive.

I'm also a conservative Christian, and so I also do not think it is positive on that sense.

Being gay is not a choice, being gay is the product of nature and nurture. People's brains sometimes are wired to be attracted to those of the same sex. No one wants to be homosexual that is homosexual. It's not exactly the sweet life. As a Christian, what I would simply tell homosexuals to do is find meaning elsewhere in their lives. They know their sexual desires are odd and chaotic, but they also want to express them because having a sexual partner feels fulfilling. But there is (more often than not) no deeper meaning than getting off. Searching for meaning elsewhere is the only way to ground yourself in happiness.

sonicthehedgehog57 : Right and that is what I've said that people need to own up to their responsibilities not sure if you're sarcastically mocking what I've said or anything. Obviously there are circumstances where you are forced to give up a child or aren't able to prevent it because you may not have access to those resources but that's not the people I was talking about. Condoms are available in most western countries and are 100% effective are they functioning like intended. Sure there could be a scenario where it breaks however no reliable evidence actually suggests that would happen hence it is an irrational fear and should a condom somehow fail a person is still able to get an abortion.

You're talking about some hypothetical scenario that would apply to an extreme minority of people who have an abandon their child where they've taken every measure to prevent a pregnancy, which isn't really why child neglect occurs. The thing is you're also lumping in gay people with transvestites and transgender people. I don't know of any gay people that want to use the other gender's bathroom, that whole debate comes from people identifying as the opposite gender even if some gay people might be for that being allowed there are also gay people who in fact are against separate bathrooms. There also is no law forcing you to call a person by their preferred pronoun it's simply something you do out of a respect for that person.

In any case why is this really a problem? I can see the reason people might feel uncomfortable about having to share locker rooms especially when said person hasn't even had a sex change, but when it comes to bathrooms, It's not like it hinders people from being able to use it. Nor have I seen any immigrants claiming that it is their right to be able to migrate to the US or any other country... You're taking issues not really related to the debate of homosexuality/gay adoption and applying them to it.

Zlinqx :

Homosexuality is still inherently more dangerous because of their use of buttsex to simulate the vagina, more likelihood of anal fissures, I would go as far as to say that lust is a generally large issue with them as well. It seems the very ideology that most of them have makes them more ignorant about STDs and more likely to transmit them. That's what the last 40 years of statistics have suggested anyways. I want an explanation for this other than "We're still getting the word out" Because honestly. The people who campaigned for gay rights were not only some of the loudest people on social media. . . supposedly all into the scientific facts, should be the same community in places like San Francisco showing a heavy majority of the STDs come from them. If a person already suspects that such people were just doing it for easy sex or because they can't control themselves, or even that it's a by product of abuse? It only goes further to confirm their suspicions.

"You cannot change a person's sexuality, you can only suppress it. That's more likely to drive people to inflict self harm and just overall be far more damaging to their health and development than letting them be who they are."

Perhaps you would change your mind if you were too look at pedophilia, bestiality or mechanophilia? I believe that some mental issues can be grounded quite deep, and other things are almost unturnable if they happen during a person's development, but a person can still be happy functioning properly. Isn't that were we wish to bring all people who suffer from any such issue? Some people are the way that they are because they themselves choose to try something that they never should have. As you know your first sexual experience can be very directive and impacting in a persons life.

The reason I focus on homosexuality is because it's a hot issue that everyone was talking about in my lifetime. Looking backwards? Yeah, we have TONS of problems that, in my opinion actually laid down the foundations for homosexual acceptance. People eat too much. We are a consumptive and impulsive nation. 50% of Americans are divorced, and we abort 300,000 babies in the U.S. and Canada every year. Not to mention much of our media is incredibly sexualized. I'm aware there are other problems, and there are worse ones. In fact, it would be unfair to just target homosexuality, so I wouldn't.


Our medical companies are protected by patents on drugs that they can place a 600$ markup on. No one can compete with it, and people just. . . buy it because they aren't educated on natural remedies in life. Doctors aren't even taught about human consumption and how it affects their health. Instead their classes are funded by pharmaceutical companies who are mostly concerned with teaching them what drug to prescribe.

Our food companies basically get away with selling stuff that simply isn't food. Processed material linked to causing cancer, and loading up sugar in just about everything. The sugar I don't think I would legally do anything about, as it is a civilian's responsibility to decide how much sugar they can eat on that day. However, some forms of preservation I'm really not a big fan of. I will fully admit, I am parroting my mom here, who did spend months researching this topic so that she could cure her cancer naturally. She should have died two years ago, but she refused to go with the crowd. She did her research. She avoided chemo therapy, which does terrible things to the human body, she changed her diet, and even tried laterile, which for some reason has a 20% success rate in curing cancer, but is illegal in the U.S. (Because drug companies don't like it when chemo therapy makes them millions already.)


I think something does need to be done about that, but the problem is rooted in how much power the companies have in the shaping of our laws in the first place. They make it very hard for anyone to compete against them who is new, and they like the control that they have. It's definitely an issue.

I do agree that we should look at people for who they are as people and judge them accordingly- but, being ignorant of their biological gender will not help anyone trying to find out what they should do. In fact, even in a more "liberated" society, I notice male still doing the hardest work around town, which takes place outside, ect, where as women are accountants, cashiers and otherwise working indoors. I don't mean to sound rude, and I do not approve of things simply because society accepts it. (This includes falling into traditional gender roles). But. . . I think that if you are a man, and you don't take into account that you are a man, then you are not considering something important about yourself, that will let you make a more educated decision for the rest of your life. I don't think that career choices are too important when it comes to gender in a. . . broad sense. But I do believe your gender will impact your strengths in certain aspects of that career. Yes, all people are different, but all men and women are also similar at the core. Their sexual body parts all fuction the same most certainly, and only a woman is capable of carrying a child inside her womb for 9 months before giving birth- a very special ability, and something employers do have the right to consider when hiring women too I might add.

Yes, I do consider them selfish. As selfish as. . . people who evade taxes or the draft, even people who get a free pass on Obamacare while the rest of us pay up. But you are a socialist, am I right Zlinqx? Surely you understand the need for all people to be accountable on a base level in order to assure that the system does not collapse on account of slackers. I will admit, scocialism detests me in the modern form, but in an ancient Biblical format, we do see commands from Yahovah to treat strangers with respect and even set aside extra food in our fields for foregners, widows and orphans.

When one person begins to feel like they don't have to contribute. . . soon other people feel the same. After all, why do they have to put into something if other people are not, when they are perfectly able too? It dwindles from there, and this basic lack of care for individuals who are less fortunate. . . I really do believe causes the destruction of a modern society. Some children would gladly never steal if they were raised with plenty as opposed to not enough. And that's why I think a welfare system of sorts is a good safeguard against this kind of chaos, however, those who are capable of contributing should not be given a free pass.

People who are capable of working, but don't look for a job, aren't just given welfare. Why should it be any different for gays who won't have children simply because they would rather have sex with other guys?

I'm not so sure that gay parents are better than no parents. I worry that the lack of a parent in one gender would hurt that child's development. Just look at the challenges kids face who lack a mom or a dad. I won't deny that good people have come from gay parents, but good people have come from all sorts of terrible parents. It's less likely to happen, and it robs the child of something they are somewhat owed. This sounds crazy (don't I always? XD) But I was taking a look at the Torah again, and I have been wondering if orphanages are actually an unbiblical system. At least as a government institute. I mean, if someone wants to take in a child as their own? I don't have a problem with that, but the child must have a say in it too. It seems to me that children were just supposed to live of the welfare system, and find ways to support themselves. I'm beginning to come to the opinion that government orphanages are actually a bad idea.

I am glad you have been fortunate with your mom.

Yeah, I do get angry with people who have kids, but don't take care of them. But no. . . my reasons for saying men and women compliment each other is actually because of. . .what I have seen in many people's lives. I mean, believe it or not, I make observations, and I state things based of those observations from a technical standpoint, as much as it would be based off my own experiences. If you do not have as much faith in me, then you should write me off and discontinue the debate, because I cannot be reasoned with. However, from a scientific standpoint, I think you will agree that there are many things that men and women compliment eachother on. Yes, all men and women are different, but they are simultaneously the same.

Children are not stopped by abortion. They are terminated by it. If two humans having sex doesn't create human offspring, then I don't know what does. I know I've met human beings on a daily basis who are more worthy of termination than they are.


kirbmanboggle :

Yes, yes I did.

And I am more than welcoming of your opinion here, because this is an ongoing study for me. I am pretty hard against homosexuality, but I have been wrong before and I hope I don't stay that way if it is the case. I know that males can be empthatic, and I would even classify myself as one of those males capable of doing so at a higher than average level. However, I am not totally convinced that is something people are just born with. Perhaps I could research specifically what you have just stated more deeply later, but here are my initial problems with such a theory.

For one, I will agree that there are chemical imbalances in the brain, and the human body can be aroused by strange things, but, this is something almost every person experiences. In fact some people have even been aroused by inanimate objects that look nothing like a human. In fact we have a group of people find cars literally sexy today, as well as other people who like animals. . . underage children ect. Your estrogen example may hold weight, but a lot of homosexuals have also come out and said that their lifestyle was a choice, and it couldn't be anything less. I mean no offense kirb, but I know you have not had the best life growing up at all. I don't mean to belittle you, but you did have some problems even with your interaction with people on Vizzed, although other people like me and Singeli did try to help, and I'm glad that we could become friends. What I am saying, is not an uncommon situation, but is it possible your bisexuality is part trauma induced? That's not always the cause, and indeed, every case is different. I hope not to make you upset by suggesting as much, but it's a hard for me to believe that people are just born this way.

I fear that it's just a ruse made to justify something that ought not be justified, and in the end won't make people truly happy. In fact, I know what you mean when you speak about feeling great passion, and a wonderful thing is when love is felt or accomplish. However, I have also seen that feeling be swept away, leaving behind the shadow of an illusion to what I thought was coming. Just because a person has feelings, does not make them justified. In fact, following our heart and desires can be the worst thing that we've ever chosen to do. Even in straight marriages as women let themselves be used, or a husband picks a wife who emotionally abuses and nags him to death. Just because you feel something in the moment does mean happiness overall. We must gaurd ourselves from our own hearts at times sadly.

Society will always hate you if you're different. Not because you're right and they know it. . . and they won't even hate you because you are wrong. They'll just hate you because they aren't used to it and they fear what the long term consequences could be to their order structure. That's why many people hate me, and I keep a lot of my political views to myself when I'm in "dangerous territory."

Yeah, males can be nurturing. It's not the same as a girl, but it can be. . . mimicked or done in a fatherly way. I still would have to say by experience it's different in some ways. Genders can mimic one another temporarily and even do decently at some things, however, the base programming and biological structure is still there, and most times people will revert back to that.


Even if a person is born with such preferences, that doesn't make them a good thing, and that doesn't mean it's unchangeable. Out of curiosity, have you looked at. . . soy and homosexuality?

I have an interesting story for you. I had a piano teacher who owned chickens, and like most chicken owners, when she had compost, she would throw the compost out to their pen and the chickens would eat it up. However one day, she threw something out to her birds that had a large amount testosterone in it. Realizing her mistake too late, she went out to retrieve the material, but it was all gone. Days later her female chickens had grown large spurs, and started crowing like roosters. The worst fact of all was that they quit laying eggs. . . This made them. . . effectively nothing but a money sink to her. She had to kill them, and it was very unfortunate.

It wouldn't surprise me if what you said was somewhat true, in fact, I would go even further to suggest a diet of large amounts of estrogen could have a negative effect on a person's sexuality. But I don't think it's a good thing to have, you know?

Anyways, thanks for stopping by, and being polite as you have been. I whole heartedly appreciate it and hope for the best for you. No- seriously, I wish I had more people talking about this like you have. I mean you not only explained your own story and why you think it is this way, but you were kind and humbler. Attitudes like that will help change the world. ^^


imamonster :

Yeah, I know what you mean. A record of STDs being rampant for over 40 years in a community that is supposedly the most scientifically, sexually, educated group of people in the world. I totally got rekt that day.

"I'd comment on the STD discussion you keep bringing up but Zlinq already rekt you on that so I'm not gonna bother."

Which. . . you did just comment on it. But hey, it sucks losing, so I can't blame you. Could spell your champion's name right rather than making a short little post as fast as you can regarding your thoughts on the issue. He's a nice guy, just saying. The fact that he doesn't have an ego and. . . I dunno, push it on people too much? That makes him actually desirable to talk too. I'm glad I don't let you be the example for most of my more liberal friends out there. That's for sure. :3


sonicthehedgehog57 :

Yeah, that's not far from how I feel on a lot of those issues. People don't have a right to move to another country. We need to think about our own countries future, and besides that. If. . . gays or ANYONE wants to use their "oppressed identity" to get certain rights higher than ours, or manipulate the courts, then we've traded one set of oppressed people for another, and that's what angers me. Why do people become the monsters they want to destroy!?


Txgangsta :

I had always suspected that was the cause. I think that they can be healed though as sexuality is a very mental thing to begin with. I think of how Song of Solomon se

sonicthehedgehog57 :   Good points there with so-called "gay entitlement". I just wish there weren't so many spelling and syntax errors as you made those points. I am sick to death with widespread reports that gays have flouted adoption laws [ and have it seen as correct conduct for their perfidy to be openly supported + enforced by higher courts ] , disregarded a mother's [deliverer of a child; not a small feat] inherent right to renege on a signed agreement [ that is her kid you dirty sheets! ] and cancelled mother's day events at school.  It's like some of these jerks don't have mothers or at least not one that they even like. I have been thinking their political clout extends too far.


 Whatever a woman signs on for when she is pregnant, she often feels differently about tossing her baby into an abyss after she delivers. She has a right to change her mind. Do not infringe on that, sock pluckers!


 That said, there is a unique opportunity with gay adopters to protect a child's welfare. If they are completely gay and their adopted child is mandated to be the opposing gender, it virtually eradicates any chance that the child suffers sexual abuse. No other pairing but gays raising an opposite gender child to them can accomplish this almost guarantee. There would be no question about such interference. Ignore the seldom occurring yet puffed up molestation or peer sexting stories the press likes to focus on and follow up most frequently and you realize the vast towering majority of child sex abuse cases really are perpetrated by parents. That is the only way in which it can be better on a scale in which reason and accountability apply. Highly beneficial? How can anyone say that when they don't intimately know the particulars of every adoption case ever? Nobody really knows whether it might work out better overall if the construct of taking in a kid that is not yours by birth had no existence as a concept.  Z needs to remove the dil from his mouth. It gives him funky breath.


 So long as they don't try to force an adoption to occur, then they aren't ripping a child away from where it ought to be by abusing the legal system. If they disobey what is proper conduct for everyone else, they are no better than that woman who stole a child from a Florida hospital all those years ago. Interestingly, the now young woman's birth parents are also in the wrong because they wish to force their parenting on her. Entitlement is the wickedness at the root of any instance of harmful parenting. They have talked about uprooting her from her home state, making her live with them and have a withered old piece of cake from the freezer taken out of every birthday cake she missed. Now that is sick. Sodomy pales in comparison.

If you are legally an adult, you may feel empowered to opt out of all the horrible things mentioned in the above paragraph.

 Don't do it!

~ Christopher John Davison from his "Don't Pay The Ferryman"


 More on Swordy's discussion...

 I find I agree. I didn't think it would be a good thread when it kicked off with "I don't like [them]" but you actually do have some balanced rationales for a select portion of your views. You stumble in assuming people psychologically need both their parents[one works just fine apparently] in much the same way most uninformed would assume that there is any harm in the enforcement of gender roles[if enforced properly: protects family units, their sanctity and sanity] or that dominance and submission are necessary parts of relationships. Let's keep the freaky stuff to a mundane minimum please.

Sorry for butting in. I had an itch. I scratched.


 P3

Sword legion :  Homosexuality is not inherently more dangerous that's the whole point, simply being homosexual does not affect your rationality, I can't stop you from thinking otherwise but I doubt you have any evidence actually pointing to the fact that homosexual people are more irrational. I've already stated why homosexual people are more likely to have STDs in the last thread you made on this matter. Most people both straight and non straight see preventatives (specifically condoms) as something that's just useful for preventing pregnancies and don't know that it also protects against STDs. Gay people are therefore unlikely to use them because there is no risk of getting pregnant. Gay people are also more likely to have anal sex if having sex but that does not mean homosexuality is inherently more dangerous. If you believe this proves that then you need to look up the definition of the word inherent. This is again why gay people need to be informed on safe sex since this gets rid of this "danger". This argument also really only applies to male homosexuality in the first place.

I brought up pedophilia to make that point last debate. Yes it's also something that can only be suppressed. When it comes to pedophilia and bestiality it is different because children and animals either cannot consent or aren't in a fit state to consent to sexual acts. In these cases you're left with little choice but try to suppress it through therapy. With homosexual people there really is no need since no one is being forced into things they don't want to do or are being taken advantage of.

If anything don't those higher divorce statistics by your line of reasoning, prove the point that straight couples aren't at all necessarily more fit to parents? While the discussion about consumerism and corruption within the medical industry might be worth having it doesn't relate to this discussion.

You can have the opinion that people should "factor in their gender" but you cannot force other people to do the same. The whole point is that having a society where we let people categorize based on gender is what leads us to stereotyping. Besides people most of the time have an idea of their own skill set and this would make it harder for them to take advantage of these skills. Standard gender roles would for example dictate that women are undisputedly the best cooks yet some of the most famous chefs in the world are men. Living in a society where we let the gender roles becomes norm is wasting the potential of those who might be exceptional at doing something associated with another gender. Aside from that the idea that some jobs are "harder" than others makes little sense. We need people who take on a variety of jobs because a society cannot function if everyone had the same type of job. Additionally many of the people who have the "worst" jobs are immigrants who often come from cultures where these gender roles are more prevalent thus they choose to try and live in accordance with them and that's their right. People should be able to make the choice for themselves.

Again refer to why I previously said we should not let people be categorized based on gender. It isn't too different from categorizing people based on race or religious beliefs because people may technically speaking be more likely to hold certain beliefs because of the circumstances they grow up in. Trying to take these other factors into account however always leads to people starting to jump to conclusions and making unfair judgements about people as history has shown and the case would be no different here. Yes women are capable of becoming pregnant but that doesn't actually mean they are likely to, in this sense you're treating women unfairly because you're punishing them for something that may or may not be the case. You are judging them based on their gender not on the individual. They may have no intention whatsoever to have a child in the near future.

You have yet to explain to me how not having children is selfish or detrimental to society? Like I said we have stable population growth, if the population was in a clear free fall then I could at least understand your rationale. As it stands however by your logic aren't gay parents the least selfish of us all? Gay people still pay taxes allowing children that are not theirs to go school. By choosing adoption they give a child a new chance of life in stead of bringing someone new into the world. Since we're living in a consumerist society where resources are becoming increasingly scarce how is this by any viewpoint the more "selfish" thing to do? If anything it benefits both sides.

How is gay parents or single parents going to be worse than no parents? Ask any person including me if they would rather be raised by loving parent(s) or have none at all and everyone would go with the former. Yes I won't deny that having a father figure can be important for children, but you can have someone who acts as that without it actually being your biological father. 

Besides what exact alternative are you suggesting that would enable every child to have straight parents? Should we force people to be straight and to adopt children in stead of having their own? That wouldn't work because you seem to think adoption is selfish. In the same vein there are many straight couples who do not care at all for their children and constantly neglect them and/or abuse them. How would this or children having no parents at all be a better alternative? Not having any parents at all is by any measure far more potentially harmful to a child so we should let gay couples and single parents adopt. By your logic the most ethical thing to do (as there will never be parents for these children and non straight couples aren't a viable alternative) would be take their lives. But I trust that's not what you actually believe.

The whole reason I kept getting into this debate in stead of dismissing everything you say as some people might feel is appropriate is because you seem interested in at least understanding other view point. The thing is regardless if our biology is geared towards heterosexuality we cannot turn gay people straight. I know you disagree on that but I'm really inclined to believe the gay people who say they have been turned straight were 1. Not Gay to begin with or 2. Have convinced themselves that homosexuality is shameful thus is trying to suppress it and saying that they're not which is far more damaging to one's health (though we cannot stop a person from doing so if they're convinced). Until you can provide reliable scientific evidence that being gay is a choice and/or something that can be "cured" I will continue to be adamant in my resistance.

I respect you as a person, I do believe you are arguing for what you are convinced is right. However now you're seemingly pointing to anything that can even be interpreted as against homosexuality like you've already made your mind up before getting into the discussion and bringing up points that I've already addressed in previous discussions without acknowledging my response. I'm perfectly fine with having a discussion but at least address the points I've already made before trying to make the same point again.

Lol, no need to be so mean. I'm not sure how you know I have an ego? I don't really see that in my post and you've never talked to me. The rekt part might've been a bit unnecessary but its just banter.

Seriously, though stop being so mean xD.

I don't have anything to fight back on or scars from anyone's words/agreements. Asked for my opinion and I gave it. Some of you just seem to think that I "only" see gay/whatever you are to be greedy people....when I obviously said that I don't care whether you are homo or not. It "does not" matter to me as long as you're not rude/interfering with my life or trying to change others...what do I care about how your "package" is?

I just said there are a large amount/SOME people whom only try and seek something out of it. It's the same thing with straight marriages...some people get married then only wanna keep the kids so can get something out of it. I'm just stating my views on it all like Sword Asked....for gods sake Pokefreak is Bisexual and yet I'm not offended or try and make fuel out of it? I also don't recall bringing up "adoption" anyyywhhereeee in my posting so....don't throw that fire at me. I dislike adoption too but only "somewhat" prefer it over abortion since just can't take idea of killing a child. NOT EVERYONE is like this but I'm looking at all corners of the scenario not just the good and bad examples of people. Hell anyone can be a killer no matter what race/age/area...I know there are good examples and is why I don't care if people wanna have homosexual marriages or whatever...it's not my life. Just when you see all news articles of soooooo many riots and everything...kind of makes seem like are trying to tear down our life with theirs now too.

And am also sick of "my body my decision" crap....you were just a "cell" once too...if wanna go that way I guess your parents should've thought same about you so you wouldn't have to worry about a decision. THINK before you act! If you're not ready don't go to disco fever town downstairs.

But I don't care...I've made my point and I'm not a fan of debates so if want to continue it please send email to "Find amount of f's I give in brackets ( ) @gmail.com"

sonicthehedgehog57 : As far as I can see no one is attacking you for your views but simply trying to have a calm discussion. If you didn't want that I'm kind of confused to as to why you posted in the debate forum in the first place but I'm not going to argue about what you've said.

Postman3 : That's because it is highly beneficial at large. Obviously not all cases of adoption end well but in the majority of cases it's better for a child to have parents who actually care for them than having no parents at all. When it is forced that is another matter, but to my knowledge the vast majority of cases couples aren't trying to force a child away from their parents.

The whole concept of enforcing gender roles is such a muddled idea to begin with in my view. Judging by the terminology used, in that it would somehow be necessary to protect "family units, sanctity and sanity" it seems like something that isn't founded in any of the arguments presented here but rather your existing personal beliefs. By all means, if you believe in the idea of enforcing gender roles as something beneficial and see it fit to live in accordance with that then feel free to do so. However don't try to force the idea on those who don't, especially if the reason for doing so is founded in your own personal religious beliefs more than anything.

I'm just gonna chirp in here and answer the question you proposed in the thread's title :p

"Do you think that Homosexuality is something positive?"

Honestly? I don't see it as something positive or negative. Same with being straight or bi. It's just there and at least to me, is just who you are.

Also gonna chirp in with some parts of your opening posts why do i keep putting myself in debates when I hate being in them...

"I mean. . wow! Think about that! It's a heavy responsibility, and. . . I'm supposed to not even bat an eye when two men are just going to have sex the rest of their life. . . not make more money to support other mouths ect? No. . . I find it suspicious and just like in war and the draft. . . I do not like to see other people getting off for free. Should the next generation be all of our responsibilities, and shouldn't our children get everything they need? (Parents of two genders?)"

I'm pretty sure to just have sex all the time the two men would have to, idk, get a job and make money to at least support themselves? And I know this is about feeding/taking care of children but some straight couples have children and don't GET a job just so they can reap those sweet, sweet child help money. And use that money to use drugs! Not get food for their children! Also, if the gay couple earn extra money they could always send it off to charities that help feed hungry children so while it may not be the most direct way of supporting children it is a helpful way of helping children if that's your worry. Sure, it may not be "their" children but it's still the next generation :p.

And now for your response to Zlinqx.

"I'm not so sure that gay parents are better than no parents. I worry that the lack of a parent in one gender would hurt that child's development. Just look at the challenges kids face who lack a mom or a dad. I won't deny that good people have come from gay parents, but good people have come from all sorts of terrible parents. It's less likely to happen, and it robs the child of something they are somewhat owed. This sounds crazy (don't I always? XD) But I was taking a look at the Torah again, and I have been wondering if orphanages are actually an unbiblical system. At least as a government institute. I mean, if someone wants to take in a child as their own? I don't have a problem with that, but the child must have a say in it too. It seems to me that children were just supposed to live of the welfare system, and find ways to support themselves. I'm beginning to come to the opinion that government orphanages are actually a bad idea."

I might be repeating what Zlinqx has said a bit meh. Yes children may suffer by only having a mom or dad but part of that comes from the single parent having to support their child(ren) by themselves. Because of that, they may have to work long hours and not get to interact with their child(ren) as much as desirable. Now, if they had another person helping with the bills things might be different. Notice how I said person, not the wife's husband or vice versa. With two parents or guardians who may or may not be gay, the financial situation will at least be a little better and will help the child(ren).

Also, while I will agree that having a mother figure as well as a father figure is important, that isn't strictly restricted to what sex you are. A male can be motherly and vice versa. Sure, your sex may influence how you are inclined to act but it's not that clear-cut.

However I will say that orphanages, at least the ones I've seen, are run awfully and seem like an awful place to live. And I will also agree that children should have at least some say about what parents they go to. This is gonna affect them until they're 18 so it just makes sense that they should be able to affect the decision somewhat.

Why do you care so much what other people do under the covers.
That's creepy, dude.

Also I'm sorry but your "arguments" are really very old stereotypes/gender roles, which are not true. I could go more into detail about it but frankly, it seems like your opinions are very hard to sway considering how many times you've pretty much attacked homosexuals (or rather, many members of the site have)

Zlinqx :   I do not have the godlike omniscience to know that the end product of "most" adoptions is "highly beneficial". Please great lord Z. Do share with us your immaculately conceived evidence that this is true. All the adoptees I have ever met have tragically messy rooms, behave irresponsibly and continue their plethora of unhealthy life decisions well into their adulthood. Adopted by parents who provide and care abundantly, yet...

 Of course, I humbly bow in anticipation of your ethereal wisdom and foreknowledge of subtle developmental influences in homes across the world. Do tell what you know. I beseech you.

 In forced adoption cases, I was referring to that being wrong when a woman is separated from her child not through her choice but through a higher court's decision and that the only reason her inherent right to keep that special bond intact was violated by practice of law was that the adopters were gay and they could claim discrimination. Even if that was cited as a reason for refusal, as deliverer of said child her choice in the matter of it cannot ever, EVER rightfully be alienated. When a woman has given birth to a healthy child, [even if prejudice may have been said] prejudice is never the true motive for a mother keeping her child. If she said that was the reason, fine. She can say sorry for hurting their feelings of entitlement and be forgiven. She does not need to lose her kid that she made a choice to keep over something so pathetic as the mores of entitled adopters who are unfairly advantaged by justices who make such unfair verdicts purely for reasons relating to their own sociopolitical status.

 You think the Jenner family are sane or leave anything as sacred? Bruce doing his swap-de-wop-de-freakeroo and choosing a fake name to be ratified by public office. When my mom was a young lady, the bearded, alternatively attired six-footer storming the dressing room alarmed her. She thought he was there for reason of threat. Now these creepers in drag want to be recognized for what they were not to be.

 That is the crop we reap when we do not positively encourage gender roles across the board. Gender roles come to most people naturally. It is a fight parents have with themselves due to modern day influence about harm [when there is no evidence of that] not to give encouragement when their girl naturally wants to play with dolls. I say they do what natural happens to be if that child's inherent preference enforces a gender role. What is wrong with that? Is it so hard the other way letting it be and doing nothing if the kid's inclinations do not support gender roles? No! My dad just had to tell me repeatedly that if want to go out with another dude, he'll pay for the movie and give us a ride. Then two-faced dad makes fun of me when I talk about cute girls sitting a few rows over in class. Amazingly, my dad is not liberal, just cynical. Good news can always be bad news to him.


 Thinking about it rationally, homos do have a track record spanning generations and continents of illogical behavior. Maybe someone has it backward. Homo love may not cause irrational behavior but perhaps those who are irrational want homo love because of their mental flaws. That would preclude the existence of any rational thinking homo. It won't be them that keep society on a balanced, fair track. Their situation is one of the many ways countries do run off the rails. Keeping it locked down is the logical discourse for state preservation. Remember Abraham. Not even ten good men.


 ~ ~ ~
 






Sword legion :  

 I must disagree on a few points.

To paraphrase Tracy Moore of jezebel, if much of your generation got married in the previous two decades and the predicted decline of divorce continues as it has, very likely approximately two-thirds of these marriages will remain intact until the end of the couples' lives. We may not want to give up the ghost but the truth seems to be that divorces are on a consistent triple-decade downturn. The "apa" may be broader in their figures (it's actually closer to 40%) but even they acknowledge that the marriages of Americans not the American people themselves incur this high rate. Our own Globe and Mail reports a somewhat higher 43% rate for Canadian marriages being broken by divorce. No idea what made you jump to the people themselves doing the worst and then moving on at that half and half rate. The future marriages of divorcées is of predictably higher mortality due to those being the type of people that do it more easily. Like Jack Bauer once famously said, "They weren't bad. They were ordinary, just like you and me. Then they became tempted and they compromised [their integrity] just the once. When you compromise [in such a way] once, it becomes easier to compromise the next time. Pretty soon all you're doing is compromising. They got nailed because they compromised... once."

My aunt whom I adore was married five times. Four of her marriages ended in Canada. The last one ended in the states as she was a dual American citizen by that point. Auntie is not representative of all Canadians or Americans but she has stuffed the stats for 5 marriages and five other people being set on a course to possibly be married and divorced again. It would be questionable at best to say that half of people get divorced after they marry. The looming majority still do not and never have.

The only significant STD stat I know to be true related to this is that 90% of all infections contracted are the result of "direct" contact between two males. This does make having sex the "other way" significantly more risky. It would be logical to abstain in light of this but as previously established, the behavior of these individuals is far from rational. I have had this stat verified by a university student who was studying sexual knowledge quite seriously and copied that one onto a flashcard so I could help him out with his exam. Likewise as before this does not apply to all sexually active people or all homos, just people who have been infected and sought treatment. The gay movement would not be the corrupt political force to be reckoned with that it is if 90% of them had contracted AIDS in their lifetime and they died off in droves. God gave us a choice. Live among them or stone them. I like the former option because mercy and kindness spares those who deserve it not - there are many ways in which a person may deserve it not and living as an unrepentant homo is just one of them so always be merciful and kind. The Golden Rule. God will judge you in the manner you have judged others.


 ~ ~ ~
 

 P3

Sword legion : While we're in agreement that homosexuality is not a positive thing, I still have a question. You say that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt because women are better at caring for children. What about lesbains?

Also, make sure your words have less hate in them next time. It's hard to call you an ally when you are frustrated and don't communicate kindness in your criticism.

Postman3 : Perhaps I didn't phrase it in the best way but I mean highly beneficial in the context that it is in most cases much better than the alternative which is letting these children grow up with no parents at all. To have someone in your life who cares about you and loves you. Now obviously there is a risk of having abusive parents but that isn't unique to cases of adoption.

I do think there is psychological risk when children grow up without their biological parents. It can cause one to wonder and can lead to having feelings of abandonment which can lead to difficulties. This is something that most of the time is out of the control of adoptive parents. However I don't see how it would be rational to think that it results in people making "unhealthy life decisions and behaving irresponsibly" just because it happens to be so with the people you've met in person. It's not like you've met every adopted person in the world or do you engage with adopted children on a daily basis? I've met people who were adopted and among those were some of the most responsible and kind people I've met. On that note doubt most people would bring up the fact that they're adopted when you first meet them so you've likely met many who are as well. I didn't learn that most of these people were adopted until long after meeting them or even from them directly. Adoptive parents are capable of being some of the most loving and responsible parents there is. In the same way biological parents can be irresponsible, completely neglect their children and even abuse them.

What proof do you have that gender roles as we view them are completely inherent? You haven't provided a description of what these innate gender roles are and that's what I mean by it being a muddled idea. People have their own views of just what constitutes these gender roles. Just because there is a biological difference between the sexes that does not prove that our idea of gender roles are innate. Obviously a man can't carry a child but there is no gene that make women automatically better at cooking or men better at driving for example even though many associated those activities with that gender. You seemingly mock me for making assumptions even though you're doing no less here. 

I believe the stereotypes that stem from these gender roles are social constructs, for example in many hunter gatherer societies the men and women did not abide by these traditional gender roles. Women participated in hunting and men in gathering activities. We can still observe this today in some parts of world. Children of different sexes are treated differently from the day they are born, everything from the toys we let them play with to how women are portrayed in movies as damsels in distress so with that in mind I wouldn't say it's surprising that these gender roles may feel natural to some.

Furthermore the point which I've made this entire time is that even in the event that there is some truth to these gender roles, that doesn't make enforcing them a good idea. When we accept gender roles as truth that's when people start making assumptions about others based on their gender, leading to people being unfairly treated and the skills of individuals being wasted. The same which goes for when we start categorize people on other traits such as assuming black people are criminals. I'm not even arguing that living in line with these gender roles is necessarily a bad thing if that's what makes people content just that they shouldn't be enforced.

While I don't see how this relates to the topic of gay adoption how does Bruce Jenner represent every transsexual person out there? Just because of happening to get a lot of attention in media? Furthermore here you are using what seems to be religious reasoning again when asking me if they "leve anything as sacred". I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I'm an atheist, has it ever struck you that a large portion of people don't share your religious beliefs/values or is anyone who isn't religious devoid of any set of morals in your view? Even if looking at it from a religious point of view why do these people identify as the other gender if it wasn't meant to be, why do they have that mindset and why do only some people have these feelings? It would seem like a strange "test of faith" to put people through. Also looking that, why is it harmful to society? It does not stop a person from contributing, rational member.

As a side note, I hope mocking the other person isn't how you usually approach a discussion. Otherwise I can see why you think these roles should be enforced. No one is going to hear you out if repeatedly ridicule them.

Reading this was a roller coaster, but first things first: the answer to the thread name. I think homosexuality is just neutral. They don't deserve anything special for being gay, but they shouldn't be harmed for it, just treated as everyone else. 

In regards to how awful it is for them not making babies, how is this necessarily a bad thing? You seem convinced that them raising children is a horrible thought, so why are you mad at them for being incapable of reproducing with each other if it would harm their offspring due to having the same sex parents? 

I also personally dislike gays, although for different reasons. I dislike them for the same reason I don't like black people, which is just encountering awful people who just happen to have the distinction of either skin or sexuality to a sheer amount where being awful is subconsciously associated with those categories. With that in mind, I can see how you can dislike homosexuals with connection between them and selfishness; however, selfishness isn't a result of being homosexual, but simply because that's how they behave. Even if it were, I don't think that opting out on producing a child together makes them selfish. Theoretically, could a gay man impregnate someone willing to carry their child and let the gay couple keep it instead or a lesbian woman getting impregnated by a willing donor and then raise the child? Sounds similar to surrogate mothers to me, but I digress.

What if they just want to be with someone who makes them happy and be productive working members of society? You make it seem like they have to create offspring in order to contribute to society and when there are some places (like India and China) that are so overpopulated that creating more kids is the last thing they need, it just seems faulty. People can contribute in other ways, and the main way they do is by working, which anyone can do regardless of sexuality. On a different train of thought, what about straight people incapable of conceiving kids, are they not contributing? Would homosexuality be okay with you if both subjects were infertile?

Can you please explain how not having children lets them get away with nothing or am I misunderstanding the correlation between not having kids and not working to support other mouths?

I get that writing about something can make you more knowledgeable in something, but it doesn't make you an expert. I haven't looked at many of your stories, but I don't see you writing about homosexual characters in your stories, so all the time you spend writing straight ones you get more emotions out of it.

Sorry, this is probably a train wreck because I suck at making things understandable.

To be honest I really don't mind homosexuality as it is just them and I don't judge. It is their life, so let them live it how they see fit and don't shame them for it.