I do not care what homosexuals do behind closed doors. Just as long as they do not expect others to be happy for them,to expect others to accept it,and do not push their views on the world. I guess I am an ancient male pig. I believe it is a man and a woman. But in this new century,the very basis of life,the very basis of everything is being challenged and rewritten.

As for them adopting kids...oh God,I can see people wanting to break out the pitchforks and torches for me. I would think that if two gays were to adopt a child,that child would grow up very confused. I would hope that they would not push their sexual preferences on the child,but all that kid would know is gay on gay. Until they go to school and see male on female relationships. And that kid will grow up very confused and troubled.

I do not know if they would be good parents. It is a giant crap shoot,because there are so many parents that deserve to have their kids taken from them. And at the same time people who cannot conceive naturally will not know what it is like to have something of their own DNA. I would personally hold gay adoption as a last resort.

Now before you crucify me for my beliefs,this is what I believe,it is an opinion,not of right or wrong. Like I said,everything is changing and some of us cannot or will not accept it. Just like bi-racial children,they will grow up confused. It does not make them less human,just different. They will face not fitting in with either side and be considered the weirdo on the family tree. A very smart man told me,that we are all racist on some level.

In closing,I think the world has gone to hell honestly. If gays want to be with each other and adopt,fine. Do not expect any benefit,recognition,exemptions,gratitude,or anything positive. Remember,homosexuality is a CHOICE,a DECISION,it is not predetermined.

It's funny how this sort of posts keep getting made by the same few people. These people get told off, have no follow up arguments, and abandon the threads, only to remake them later. Sword Legion especially seems to have an obsession with anal sex. It's all he posts about it, going into hilarious detail. Reminds me of good ol' Rick Santorum and all the 'research' he did on gay porn.

Then there are other posters who see a discussion as their big chance to jump in and make nonsensical rants about the evils of homosexuality. With no supporting evidence, of course. They aren't interested in a discussion so much as they want to brandish their opinions, or what passes for opinions, at the forum.

King Sull :   Good to see you know why you feel how you feel.

 I do highly suspect that giving any woman an invitro-fertilization at the very best will create offspring that is infertile. Whether their mother was infertile or not, that child now walks into the world sterile and pairs up with someone who much more possibly is not. This couple must now also get an IVF if they have illusions about the importance of producing together "naturally". It is in these clinics' best interest to perpetuate the necessity of their services. I hope the world mostly pulls back from using them before the world becomes like the film "Children of Men".

 Let's also stem the flow of their influence into the world so no others come to harm directly due to their agenda when it comes to law, adoption, care of children, et cetera. I do not want to see class action suits where they triumph yet again in making their entitlement supersede our ability to hang on to what is ours.  Law has the ability to change everything. Decisions are handed down for the most selfish motivations from the top. Bleeding away our hold on true justice will not be good in the generations to come. We don't want to be on our knees in chains with collars around our throats and muzzled by an imitation male anatomy gag until our new masters happen by to play with us. Let's turn back the clock to when that was unthinkable and it could not have been possible.

 Boured
:

Yes. That's a good policy. Props for improving your grammar, spelling and punctuation.

That's why I advocate for mercy. I would want it for myself as well.

 Still, when they make waves by claiming entitlement of young people that nobody but true parents ought to and the real parents fight to keep them... then I do not like it so much when they win. Leave us alone, we leave you alone. I did just watch Suicide Squad so I am primed for some action.


 Zlinqx :

Enforced in the parental sense does not in any way mean "police force with a helicopter". It means encouraged during the formative years of childhood. Encouraging whatever comes naturally to the kids if the parents view it as positive.  Some things children naturally do is not positive. Like picking things up and playing with them. If they find a loaded gun? The parents must discourage the manual handling of firearms and impress upon their kid how dangerous they are if said parents do not view firearm discharge at their child's tender age to be good for them. Mama knows best. Listen to your mama. If a son is gay or looks like he may have some of that curiosity about what other guys parts look like, that is still positive - albeit HIV positive. You want what is best for your offspring. Discourage that. He wants to wear a dress, say no. Do not let your affections for these cherished progeny cause you to indulge such things.

 You tell me what constitutes a gender role. I happen to believe each man and woman is give or take unique in their skills. I know my sewing and cooking ability is well above the dismal standard expected of men. I do them quite adequately. If I entered into relationship with someone who did them exponentially better[no guarantee of that just in the event that the person I come to love is female] and forbid me to touch the sewing kit, shunned me from the kitchen because nothing I cook or mend is up to their standard, I would be fine with that while still admirably protesting for my competency. I could get better if I gave it more attention. Skills aren't inherent. They are taught or independently learned. We would have so many more competent cooks today if every mother of the previous generation actually learned from our grannies when they were young and made an extra effort to pass cooking knowledge on to their sons and daughters[because it is not yet social crime to teach your kids to cook]. Nope. Some women of previous generations were resistant to learning because of narrow-minded short-term plans of making the same statements you are. Now they have no long-term depth of skill to pass on and some previously known knowledge has been lost from the human consciousness. My ma is more influential than such idiots because she wanted to cook and encourages me to. The only voice I've heard lately holding the torch on the concept of women being made to cook is J-Lo. That tramp has full kitchen staff [all male I can only assume] because her skill at making burnt toast veers more towards fire hazard than over-crisped ebony.

 Men ought to drive better because reflexes, vision and mental focus generally do test better for males who are granted licenses. I tend to be of the mind that men squander these natural advantages at times by being risk takers or just carelessly impatient on the road. Most fender benders and aerial launching collisions are attributable to male drivers' mistakes. Most belligerent insurance claims are the result of a middle aged woman's car door being dented by an apologetic male who offers to pay for the repair directly and instead is cost hundreds more bones due to a middle party being involved before being allowed to compensate her. These are not stereotypes. These are things that happen all the time.

Social constructs are what keep nations from becoming unglued. Societies of cooperative people do not exist in the absence of social convention. Before you reject all of them indiscriminately, look at the world outside your front door. See anything you like? Anything you want to preserve? What you profess to reject made all that possible.

 I don't care that you are an atheist. People only claim atheism when they feel pressured to give up their vices. If corruption did not have a hold of your heart in some significant way, you would have no reason to deny the existence of God. Without the grace of the Lord, love would be no more than a hormone induced narrative we fabricate for our amusement. Thankfully, it is no such thing and our existence has significance. I used to toy with God's potential non-existence before too. Then I realized only cowards cut and run.

 I like you Z and I advocate for divine mercy in the case of your current misunderstanding.

 
...and BJ does a lot to confuse people by publicly announcing his distorted beliefs of himself. If he was no celebrity, no one would say that his behavior was relevant or representative of very many people. His splashing it into people's line of sight makes him a poor role model to more than just his own family and does significantly more to distort beliefs and corrupt the world. I would like no one to have such influence and if they do get to that level of being well-known, never toss their private corruptions into public view.


 P3



 P3

I'll come out and say it I guess...

My mother is lesbian. I've basically been raised by two mothers my whole life.

Am I confused? No, I'm perfectly happy in my current relationship. (heterosexual too, it's almost like the gayness didn't pass on to me! no way!)
Am I troubled? No, my life is pretty content right now.
Do I feel like I missed out on some sort of development due to the lack of a prominent father figure? No. I feel like I'm normal just like everybody else. And I am, in fact, normal like everyone else.
Do I wish I had a father figure? Nope. Perfectly fine.

I'm pretty sick of this stupid stigma that gay people can't raise kids just as normally as straight parents.

So please, if you have any questions or concerns you want to ask a 17-almost-18 year old raised by gay parents, I'd love to answer them. Oh, it would be my pleasure.

Minuano : What is the purpose of life, according to you?

Mold and Crumbs : Where do I fall in your two categories, based on my response? Am I the first primary rabble that posts and runs, or am I the secondary crazy nonsensical group who simply brandishes opinions?

If being homosexual, or bi, is wrong, I don't "want" to be right.

These posts always make me so sad.

legacyme3 : What is the meaning of living?

Txgangsta : 42

You guys are all terrible people saying you hate gays.

Just saying.

You're the problem with the world.

I'm sure that god you're so in love with would be so proud of you.

All of you calling homosexuality and liberalism a disease must have serious mental disorder.

Some of you guys can't even be serious with this crap.

Oh, and if you want to say homosexuals aren't happy, think again.

Get that fake psychology bulls*** outta here.

Barathemos : Just cause you don't agree or are strongly against the Homosexual lifestyle doesn't make one good or bad... I really wanted to avoid this thread, as it's an OLD argument... We get that someone is against it and another is for it. Also, it feels like you take it more personally than it should be. It's a debate, if it affects you, I'd want to suggest that you don't partake in the debate. It's a friendly discussion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

Now, so as to not get off topic... I do not agree with the Homosexual ideology/thought/lifestyle. But that doesn't mean that I can't have friends in that circle. I have several friends that are really nice to hang out with. But whether they are "happy" is really nothing I can decide or tell... That is something I believe is independent of their sexual preference. If they are depressed, I wouldn't say, it's because you're gay... That makes no sense, and has nothing to do with anything. But that isn't really what this thread is about. 

The homosexual circle does have a lot of STD's but so does the straight side... STD's are due to unsafe, or unclean sexual relations... Doctors work hard on making the numbers of STD's smaller, but until people decide to be safe, the doctors can't really do too much... Just sayin' there's two sides to that metaphorical wall. 

On parenting... I've never met gay parents and can't really say one way or the other... Could it work in theory, yes. It can. Does it? Most likely... But really parenting is a trial and error thing anyway. It has to do with personal convictions on right and wrong actions of the child. It's a little more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer. I believe that it's possible, but not necessary a good blanket yes. (Blanket answer yes... to be specific.) 

Txgangsta : You tell me. This thread is a farce with people throwing out the same tired arguments that have already been refuted. Maybe one day someone will post something relevant to the claim that 'homosexuality is bad', but today isn't looking good.

Mold and Crumbs : I'm probably a mixture of the two from your position.

Let me ask you this: what is the purpose of sex?

Txgangsta : "Purpose" is a loaded word. It exists only where we see it. I'm going to avoid the word and consider what sex accomplishes.

Now obviously if you just want to reproduce, asexual reproduction yields more offspring with less trouble. The advantage sex initially gave is that it allowed for greater genetic diversity because you can mix genes from two sources. This also cuts down on harmful mutations as most of these mutations affect the recessive gene which can be hidden behind the dominant gene. As a result, sex speeds up the pace of evolution and gives organisms greater adaptability when faced with obstacles to survival.

Of course with evolution, functions change or are fine-tuned over time. Being able to use something in two ways is often better than one. Sex became useful for more complex animals that require two parents to raise offspring. Sex releases bonding hormones that enhances a relationship between a couple. Note this doesn't mean monogamy; pure monogamy is extremely rare. Cheating is common both in the animal world and the human world. This ties into the need for genetic diversity, but it doesn't detract from the bond that is formed between a couple repeatedly having sex. Why do you suppose the odds of a woman becoming pregnant are so low? A wild boar and sow having sex in the woods are almost guaranteed at consummating, but a woman having sex, even at the right time in her cycle is what? A 15-20% chance of pregnancy? It's so that a man that stays with a woman has a higher chance of bearing offspring with her. The same thing happens in other animals where a male's help in raising offspring is beneficial. Even mice. A same-sex couple can't bear offspring in the usual manner, but even so, they still experience the same hormonal bonding.

As sex is a form of bonding. It builds stronger relationships, and that's something most people require. It doesn't matter if you like men or women or both, many of us are looking to create a long-lasting bond with another human being. Homosexuality only changes the sex of the person you want, but the bond is the same and sex is just one part of that. Sword Legion and his unhealthy obsession over the anus has missed all these other factors. By reducing homosexuality to just butt sex, he's showing that first he is emotionally immature, second he doesn't realise that half of all homosexuals are women, third that straight couples have anal sex too, fourth that not all gay men have anal sex, and fifth he doesn't understand what an adult romantic relationship is.

Txgangsta :

In my opinion, the meaning of life is to be happy, without causing anyone undue unhappiness.

As in, you have to be able to say you lived a good life, without directly affecting someone else's life to be overtly negative. Like... it's fine to be gay or not gay, that doesn't matter, it doesn't affect my happiness if you are gay or not gay or if you like gays or hate gays.

But when it gets to trying to prove a concept morally wrong, when morals are something that is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, generally, I begin to just get sad, because that does negatively affect someone's life. I like to think of Vizzed as an accepting community, and whenever a post like this exists, it only makes people feel like they aren't being accepted. I'm not saying it isn't well-written or that it isn't thought out, again, that doesn't particularly matter.

I'm just saying it's more responsible for moral corruption than the whole being a homosexual thing.

-----

I'll also answer your other question directed to the Moldy guy. Sex serves multiple functions in our society. It can be used to reproduce or to make love. It only has purpose where we apply purpose. That is to say, it's easy to ask "what is the purpose of a god"?

To those of us without a god, we would say there is no purpose, because there is none, for us. Whether it is right (or wrong) to you is irrelevant. We can only apply purpose where purpose exists for us. It's like that with homosexuality and sex in general. For someone who is homosexual the answer to your question on sex is going to be different from that of someone who is entirely straight, likely. There will be straight people who have no interest in children, but still have sex, because of this latter function of sex, showing love (or having fun in general).

To me, sex is both a reproduction device (that you no longer even need, it's inefficient, and more efficient means exist thanks to science) and a device to satisfy oneself and another.

This is my favorite thread. You can not only find convincing arguments, interesting opinions and heated discussion, but you can also find the irrational, small-minded individuals who do nothing but throw out ad-hominems

It's everything on the internet condensed into one, small thread. I'll be nominating this for thread of the year this year.

Keep it up guys, this stuff is great

Someday, maybe Fred will win the fight.

And that cat will stay out for the night.

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.

Have a yabba dabba doo time.

A yabba doo time.

We'll have a gay old time!

Something positive? No. Something negative? No.

I agree that homosexuality isn't normal (since men are supposed to marry women to make a new generation), but I don't find it as something negative. The world isn't only formed of black and white: There is a grey color, which is neither this neither that. That grey color depends on people, on you, it is what you think is right/wrong, or neutral.

I never had problems with gay people honestly, I respect them as long as they respect me, and I believe that marriage is about love, not gender. I won't be surprised if there will be some who will disagree with me (or agree), since we're all different.  C'est la vie mes chers.

Mold and Crumbs : Actually, we understand the "purpose" of sex in quite the same way. Sex on a base level is purposeful because it creates offspring, but this doesn't seem to be the end of the meaning. In a select few animals, sex is also purposeful because it feels good, but this too doesn't seem to be the end of the meaning. There's big-league chemicals released during sex for humans (many are also released during breast feeding and childbirth) that go into forming trusting and loving relationships. The deep relationship influenced by sex (and perhaps deep relationships drive a person to sex too) seems to be a human highlight: a mixture of instinct, relationship, and reason, all in one.

I think the spot we will disagree is that I still don't think this is the end of the meaning to sex. I think part of the meaning that is missing in homosexual relations is that in heterosexual relationships, the two sexes quite literally evolved together and were molded by each other. In a sense, men were built by nature for women, and women for men. Homosexual relations loses the meaning involved with being made for each other, speaking quite literally.


legacyme3 : If morals do not exist, then of course nothing is wrong with anything. I could murder innocents at will and I would not be immoral. Many people are completely happy killing others, and they often don't because simply because they are scared of the law. Are those people right for being happy?

Perhaps what you mean is that the meaning of life is "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." That too has logical problems.

Txgangsta : No, we do not understand things the same way. I avoided the word "purpose" because it doesn't apply. You can assign your own personal purposes to whatever you see, but there is no reason for some greater overarching purpose to exist. There is no purpose to sex: sex exists because some species have been able to survive using it. Evolution does not have purpose or meaning. It's just an amalgamation of probabilities and luck. You can always invent your own meanings, but those meanings will have no value beyond your own subjective self. The deep relationships influenced by sex aren't even unique to humans. There's a long list of animals that mate for life.