This touched a bit of a nerve. Gay adoption??

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 26, 2002, 3:06 pm

very large percentage of the people in the US would agree that homosexuality is not normal behavior.

Just because the majority believes in something, does not make it right. In the 50's and 60's, I'm quite certian the majority did not regaurds blacks as equals. Unfortunatley, change has to be forced down some people's throats, whether they like it or not.

If I see one more reference to animals, I'm going to puke. Gays are people. Your anology that people without the means to reproduce shouldn't be raising children is simplified to the point of being rediculious. My aunt had her overies removed due to cancer. Should she be denied the right to adopt? Of course not.

Let me reiterate the most important part of this entire discussion one more time, that Voro pointed out earlier:

i dont think it is the government's business to legislate morality. i view it as a personal freedom issue, and the government has done a lot to take quite a few of those away over the last few years.

The bottom line is you shouldn't be making personal decisions for other people.

As far as devaint lifestyles, who gives a fuck what 2 or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? How can you even begin to enforce your morals on the sex lives of strangers? That's pretty fucking ignorant IMO. Most of the people with this mentality have more than a few skeletons in their closet, if you know what I mean. People in glass houses...

Btw, my parents adopted 3 children after I moved out. Gabe is from America and is 6. He was adopted from birth. Hanna is from Russia and she is also 6. She was adopted at 1 year of age. Leela is 2 and she was adopted from China at the age of 1 1/2. After having viewed the adoption process, it pretty much disgusts me. Gabe was around $17,000, Hanna was $10,000, and Leela cost a mere $7,000. My parents wanted to adopt a black child here in the states, but whites adopting black kids are frowned upon for the same ignorant reasons I read people spewing forth here about gays. Btw, black babies are less than $3,000. No one wants to adopt them. They all want blond hair and blue eyed whites.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » November 26, 2002, 3:09 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You are opening more than a can of worms. People and animals are meant to be in a heterosexual pairing in order for breeding to even take place. This is nature...there is no denying it. I don't care how much the gay community wants it to be legislated, you CAN'T get pregnant from a guy fucking your ass. You CAN'T get pregnant no matter how many times that lesbian fists you.

So I guess this means you dont approve of oral sex, masturbation or anal sex between straight couples because you can't get pregnant that way??? Same reasoning retard. Bad argument.

Sexual expression is not JUST about procreation. You are oversimplifying human beings by saying it is. Humans have evolved beyond our residual instincts. We have emotions and affections that are only found in higher species such as some primates, dolphins etc. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE UTILIZE FOR PARENTING. Not getting pregnant LOL.

And just to educate you bit (boy, you need it bad), many homosexuals do not have anal sex at all and most lesbians do no fist. Most sexual expression between homosexuals is oral.

EDIT: And for the record, homosexuality IS NOT a deviant lifestyle. Just becaus eyou don't understand it does not make it deviant. Your so-called research, which I assume comes from some Christian or NeoNazi funded organization is perposterous. Put it up here so I can rip it apart pls.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 3:13 pm

Gays can provide just as good a home as any straight couple, I'm not arguing against that. It's the lifestyle (from a Christian point of view that is, if you are not Christian, this does not apply). If two straight people making 175k a year are providing an awesome living for their child, but are potheads (but damnit they are raising that kid right!!!1!) is that still fair to the kid? I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, I just think it's not fair to the child.

oh, and if you are Christian, the lifestyle is definantly wrong, just as much as a lifestyle of lying, cheating, stealing etc is. Force feeding tolerance in todays times still won't make it right.

If you are not Christian, or Muslim for that matter, then this belief of being a practicing gay being wrong goes totally out the window, be happy and do what you do. If you ARE one of these religions though, there is no way you can condone the lifestyle, as it is in print in the respective good books as being wrong.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 3:16 pm

you are very correct Lala in that sex in humans is as much about communication as procreation.

but this is the case in many higher mammals as well. bottlenose dolphins use sexual intercourse (independent of gender) like a handshake. the aforementioned bonobo chimpanzees, etc.

in humans where you under ideal circumstances you have a male committed to a long term care relationship in the child (because raising human babies takes a fucking long time 15+ years), sex is an important part of facilitating that pair bond. Do you know anybody who is 'trying to have kids?' Most people have to actively try to get pregnant. you don't just stick your dick in, and lights shoot off. hey some (unlucky hehe ) people get it done in one shot, but that is not the norm. There is a reason for that, and it works to the woman's favor. It makes the man increasingly invested in her life, and thus the life of their child. Of course it is also adaptive for a man to participate in the life of his child, because more often than not, without the help of both parents, there will be decreased ability to confer decent social status. of course those who have no social status to begin with (trailer trash, crackheads) minimize their genetic risk by not being involved in their children's lives because they had so little to contribute to begin with.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » November 26, 2002, 3:18 pm

Homosexuality is as bad as stealing?

Reason #4,675 to be an atheist.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 26, 2002, 3:23 pm

Krimson, thats why religion is for retards and unevolved chimps.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 3:24 pm

only if you are Christian, don't know where it ranks in the muslim religion. Believe it or not, the Christian bible says that if a man lies with another man as if he were a woman, then they should be put to death *Leviticus 20:13). If you read around that area it actually says adultery, sleeping with animals, or your fathers wife is punishable by death too. Pretty stiff back then

So actually it's worse.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 26, 2002, 3:25 pm

Buddy Christ says "Don't hate, Masturbate!"

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 26, 2002, 3:26 pm

You are not answering my question. When it becomes genetically possible to predetermine your childrens code (before conception) are you going to choose heterosexual or homosexual for your child? I have seen 42 people vote on this thread but so far not one of you will stand up and say that you would make the decision to have your child be homosexual. When are you going to stop being hypocrites?

On a further note, which of you that are arguing with me here have even had homosexual relations? If you have not done it, then how can you even qualify to make statements contrary when you would not even do it yourself?

edit: Aranuil....I honestly do not know. There have been no instances of homosexuality among the families of myself or my fiance....so if it is genetics or learned behavior we most likely will not find out.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 26, 2002, 3:29 pm

You have my answer. I said I wouldn't chose. I would let nature take it's course.

Also, you haven't answered Voro's question either...

Pubin · Post by **Pubin** » November 26, 2002, 3:31 pm

While everyone is talking about nature and how children need a polar upbringing has the idea of single partents (male or female) completely eluded the thought process? There are millions of functional adults who were raised in a sexually unilateral environment. A good parent is a good parent. I agree it may be less than "ideal", but both sexes do not necessarily need to be represented.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » November 26, 2002, 3:32 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:On a further note, which of you that are arguing with me here have even had homosexual relations? If you have not done it, then how can you even qualify to make statements contrary when you would not even do it yourself?

Are you saying that being gay is a choice?

Also, if you haven't had a homosexual relationship, what makes YOU qualified to say that gay people can't provide children with a loving home?

*edit* Spelling... *sigh* codeine

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 26, 2002, 3:32 pm

Kilmoll sounds like the type that would beat the gayness out of his son or shoot himself thinking it was his fault for not being manly enough.

-------
On the subject, I wouldn't promote a gay/lesbian couple as being better or worse for a child. The fact is that there are plenty of babies that come from hetro parents that aren't wanted. There is a need for potential parents that have the strong desire to raise children . The orphans certainly aren't the fault of gays and lesbians.

If you think homosexuality is genetic then it doesn't matter one bit who raises them. Also, aren't gays and lesbians breeding themselves out by coupling together or are gays secretly mating with hetros and stealing their kids?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 26, 2002, 3:33 pm

from a Christian point of view that is, if you are not Christian, this does not apply

This flushes any semblance of an argument you had right down the shitter. You are basing your viewpoint on your religion. Your religion is there to tell you how to live your life, not to tell others how to live theirs. Also, I know many people who consider themselves Christians that have no issues with gays. Religion conforms to society, not the other way around. Homosexuality truely is the last great human rights movement of our era. Gays will be accepted even more in the future, leaving this whole debate for future generations to ponder "What was the big fucking deal?".

Jesalynn · Post by **Jesalynn** » November 26, 2002, 3:35 pm

I think when it comes to that choice of determining your childs sex, what diseases they won't have and if they can be gay or straight, we would be interfering with nature, evolution and the grand balance of how the human species is supposed to turn out.

I personally would not want to be able to go to a doctor, get a checklist of what my child can and cannot have, hell I don't even want to know if my baby is a male or female until it is born, takes all the fun out of having a child imho.

Could you imagine what the world would come to though if we could do this? Every freakin baby born would look like it was carved out of cream cheese and every teenager in a few years would end up looking as superficial as Brittney Spears and Justin Timberlake. Genetics isn't something we should fuck with too much, I think we would be hitting into something bad, something man isn't supposed to mess with.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 3:36 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:only if you are Christian, don't know where it ranks in the muslim religion. Believe it or not, the Christian bible says that if a man lies with another man as if he were a woman, then they should be put to death *Leviticus 20:13). If you read around that area it actually says adultery, sleeping with animals, or your fathers wife is punishable by death too. Pretty stiff back then

So actually it's worse.

not sure i would call Leviticus the "Christian bible", but that is a semantics argument for another time i would guess

.

hell in the old testament it says you shouldnt jerk off. how many guys dont jerk off? i've never met ONE guy who was so wierd that he didnt jerk off. If you want to talk about the true definition of deviant, it is a guy who doesnt jerk off

. that must be one irritable sunovabitch too boot

fairly sure that in the "Christian bible", the main character made remarks about the old laws not really being what was important to follow. No remarks about homosexuality at all most likely are contained in the new testament. interesting thing about Jesus is that he made great points to socialize with people who were outcast (lepers, members of other ethnicities) and go out of his way to embrace people.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » November 26, 2002, 3:37 pm

It's amazing how people take the things they've heard and been taught all their lives as fact.

A baby doesn't think homosexuality is wrong until they're told so. A baby doesn't think women are the weaker sex. A baby doesn't think black people are all thieves. A baby doesn't think nudity is wrong. A baby is not embarassed. Ever.

Think for yourselves.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 3:37 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
from a Christian point of view that is, if you are not Christian, this does not apply
This flushes any semblance of an argument you had right down the shitter. You are basing your viewpoint on your religion. Your religion is there to tell you how to live your life, not to tell others how to live theirs. Also, I know many people who consider themselves Christians that have no issues with gays. Religion conforms to society, not the other way around. Homosexuality truely is the last great human rights movement of our era. Gays will be accepted even more in the future, leaving this whole debate for future generations to ponder "What was the big fucking deal?".

Youare right, that's why I said if you are not Christian then this point of view does not apply to you, be merry in your gayness and live your life in society. It's gonna happen. My point was that if you ARE Christian, you cannot, in good faith, agree with the lifestyle since it says in your bible in black and white that it's wrong. If you are atheist then this print does not apply to you right? Right.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 3:38 pm

Krimson, it aslo says in Leviticus that you shouldnt eat pork or shellfish.

do Christians follow those laws as well?

which laws are the laws that matter?

Moreover, which Christians are the Christians? I mean in the Episcopalian Church (pretty mainstream white middle/upper class urban protestants) they have performed some gay marriages. Some Episcopalians dont like this. Others are for it.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 26, 2002, 3:39 pm

I have seen 42 people vote on this thread but so far not one of you will stand up and say that you would make the decision to have your child be homosexual.

If this technology existed, I would not modify my hetro child to be homo by choice. I also would not change him/her from homo to hetro. To me, that's like changing a boy to a girl or vice versa. As long as they are free of sickness and disease, everything else is butter.

Btw, I don't need to have a homosexual experiance in order to see a person being discriminated against. That's all it is: discrimination.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 26, 2002, 3:40 pm

still waiting for the first hypocrite to say that they would willingly pick their child to be gay.......

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 3:43 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:only if you are Christian, don't know where it ranks in the muslim religion. Believe it or not, the Christian bible says that if a man lies with another man as if he were a woman, then they should be put to death *Leviticus 20:13). If you read around that area it actually says adultery, sleeping with animals, or your fathers wife is punishable by death too. Pretty stiff back then

So actually it's worse.
not sure i would call Leviticus the "Christian bible", but that is a semantics argument for another time i would guess .

hell in the old testament it says you shouldnt jerk off. how many guys dont jerk off? i've never met ONE guy who was so wierd that he didnt jerk off. If you want to talk about the true definition of deviant, it is a guy who doesnt jerk off . that must be one irritable sunovabitch too boot

fairly sure that in the "Christian bible", the main character made remarks about the old laws not really being what was important to follow. No remarks about homosexuality at all most likely are contained in the new testament. interesting thing about Jesus is that he made great points to socialize with people who were outcast (lepers, members of other ethnicities) and go out of his way to embrace people.

You are correct sir. it would be wrong of me to totally shun a gay person because of his lifestyle, if I did that, I would have to do the same for a liar, an adulterer, someone that steals etc etc. I am not saying cut them off from society, no one is perfect and if we did that everyone would be isolated because we all sin and we have all fallen short. All I am saying is that as a Christian, you must view it as being wrong.

All of these other points about breeding, trying it yourself etc I am staying out of.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 3:45 pm

Voronwë wrote:Krimson, it aslo says in Leviticus that you shouldnt eat pork or shellfish.

do Christians follow those laws as well?

which laws are the laws that matter?

Moreover, which Christians are the Christians? I mean in the Episcopalian Church (pretty mainstream white middle/upper class urban protestants) they have performed some gay marriages. Some Episcopalians dont like this. Others are for it.

Glad you brought that up. I stopped eating pork 7 years ago when I read that...no lie. Don't like shellfish so that one was easy.

Not saying I am perfect, I have broken a big chunk of those 10 commandments. My goal is to TRY to not break them, knowing I will not succeed because I am not perfect, only one man was,and we killed him already.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » November 26, 2002, 3:46 pm

still waiting for the first hypocrite to say that they would willingly pick their child to be gay.......

That's like asking someone if they would choose their child to be male or female. It's not a choice that matters, neither is right or wrong. The ONLY thing that would drive a decision on sexual preference is society and how they would treat a child that wasn't exactly like them. Ask people from China if they would choose male or female and likely you'd get mostly male answers. Does that make women bad or wrong? Didn't people over there used to kill female children way back when, or consider the parents or mother as weaker for not bearing male children?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 3:47 pm

still waiting for the first hypocrite to say that they would willingly pick their child to be gay.......

your statement is meaningless

i'm not going to tell the doctor to cook me up a baby that looks like Shaquille O'Neil (though that might be good for my bank account) when i'm a 6' white guy.

so am i a racist cause i would not genetically modify my child to be black?

i wouldnt engineer a gay child, no. The reasons are simply. 1. i want grandchildren. 2. i am the only person on the planet who represents the genetic material from two of my grandparents and also my father. I think these people are great people, and i want their genes to carry on. and if my only children were gay, i won't lie, i would be disappointed. but not because of them being now less in my eyes, but for the personal reasons listed above. if my kids turn out gay, it will not really change much in the way that i view and value them in my life.

Krimson: fair enough

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » November 26, 2002, 3:49 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:If this technology existed, I would not modify my hetro child to be homo by choice. I also would not change him/her from homo to hetro. To me, that's like changing a boy to a girl or vice versa. As long as they are free of sickness and disease, everything else is butter.

What he said. As long as my children were healthy (disease free) I would be happy. I don't like the thought of "Made to order" babies.

But, if I had a child that came to me years later and said "Mom, I'm gay" I wouldn't care, as long as he/she is good person.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 26, 2002, 3:52 pm

Kilmoll, you keep saying that it's a genetic defect that the people are gay, and while you don't condone or condemn the lifestyle, they shouldn't be able to raise children because they can't naturally have children themselves. So fucking what, the ability to make a child has no bearing on the ability to raise a child. (For further reference, see Jenny Jones or Jerry Springer)

What exactly are you worried about? I'm assuming your parents are heterosexual, did they have sex in front of you? Probably not... gay parents aren't going to be having sex in front of their kids either. I'm heterosexual, as are my parents, and the thought of them having sex is quite repulsive to me. I don't really know the details of what goes on behind my parents' bedroom door, nor do I want to. I do know that they love me and have provided me with everything I've ever needed, and that the love they've shown is completely independent of their sexual behavior. Hell, for all I know, they could be into some really weird fetish that homosexuality couldn't hold a candle to as far as "deviant" behaviors go. I don't know though, because they kept their sexual relationship separate from their parenting. As I'm sure most couples, gay or straight, would do.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 26, 2002, 3:54 pm

Krimson, I admire your faith, but it's called thinking for yourself.
However, you believe what you wanna believe, free world, free minds etc.

Kilmoll, you retard, not wanting your child to be gay doesn't mean you are anti-gay. Your argument is so childish it boggles the mind.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » November 26, 2002, 3:59 pm

Couple of things here, the government legislates morality all the time. They are called laws. That is why it is illegal to steal, to murder, to buy and sell drugs. The societal role of governments is in part to shape the behavior of the citizens.

Secondly, I see Krimson quoting Leviticus. The thing you really need to remember is that the Old Testament was the old covenant between God and his followers. There were OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of really stiff penalties for offenses back then. The New Testament became the new covenant between God and his followers after the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ. People were no longer bound by the rules and statutes laid out through the different books of Moses. They were to recognize their innate nature that made them unable to acheive the Kingdom of God on their own and to seek the freely given salvation of Christ. However, this didnt remove them from following certain rules laid out in the later writings of Paul and others. Several passages within the New Testament point to sexual immorality as well as homosexuality as something that followers of Christ should avoid.

My main reason for pointing this out is that people tend to get bogged down in the more harsh views of things under the old covenant as explained in the Old Testament. There is no need to hate homosexuals or anyone else. You are to hate or abhor the act or deed but never the person.

~

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 26, 2002, 4:01 pm

I have stated several times that I am not condemning homosexuals or implying that they do not have the right to live as they choose. I do not think any of us has the right to tell them they cannot be gay. I have worked with, worked for, been a manager of, been hit on by, and dated (female) gay or bisexual men and women. Not once would any of those people have called me anything other than accepting and tolerant. And not one of them would I not say the same things to as I am here. The thing that should bother all of you is this: every single one of you, if forced to make a choice, would choose your child to be straight. Some of you are avoiding voicing that decision.

Edit: my point here being that you would not willingly pick your child to be gay, but you would willingly pick a child's parents to be gay. Hence the hypocrisy

Post by **Sylvus** » November 26, 2002, 4:05 pm

No, I think just about everyone has said that, "if forced to make a choice" they'd leave it however it is. That's the choice, and that's what they're all answering. Go ahead and actually read what some of them have to say, a lot of it is interesting and it helps pass the time at work.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » November 26, 2002, 4:09 pm

Krimson,

Just because one is Christian does not necessarily mean that one HAS to immediately vilify homosexuality. My old preacher ran a 3 month course where the group went over every reference to homosexuality in the Bible (both old and new testament). Know what we concluded? That ALL the negative references to homosexuality were either: a) when attached with some idea of a moral obligation for procreation, or b) when attached with the immorality of having multiple partners outside of a monogomous relationship.

Now, as for part A, well we can argue this point (and it has been argued in this thread somewhat) but I no longer accept the moral obligation to procreate in today's age of overpopulation.
As for part B, the monogomous relationships that many (most?) of the gay couples who choose to seek adoption as a means to complete their families DO NOT APPLY to the biblical condemnation of homosexuality (as for the Bible refers to homosexuality as a primary means for debauchery/adulterism).

This is, of course, a very complex argument, but I feel that your "you have to have my opinion on this in order to be Christian" viewpoint is narrow-minded and wrong.

Animale

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 26, 2002, 4:09 pm

Here's your answer. If I was forced I would chose straight simply to avoid my child untold hardships/stigma that is unfortunatly associated with the lifestyle.

*edit* Here's another point. I wouldn't pick gay to your question however I would have no problem at all with a gay couple I trusted raising my children if the unforseen were to ever happen to me or my soon-to-be wife.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 4:14 pm

Animale, that's why there are different sects of Christianity, so you can narrow down your opinion of the faith even farther. To each his own. Do I like it? No, but life goes on.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 26, 2002, 4:15 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:still waiting for the first hypocrite to say that they would willingly pick their child to be gay.......

If the Bio Engineer/Doctor told me my child was likely to be gay, I would NOT change it.

You have my answer.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 26, 2002, 4:17 pm

Sylvus, only 2 people have even answered the question I posed. I am not asking the question of a baby that is already conceived....twice I have said pre-conception and twice it has been ignored. There will be a day when you can pre-map your child with genetics. My question was merely if you were to have a child in that time, would you check the straight or gay box on the form? Very simple really....there is no "I would leave it however it ended up" option.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » November 26, 2002, 4:18 pm

To each his own. Do I like it? No, but life goes on.

Now if you'd apply this logic to gay adoption, it wouldn't even be an issue. Who's the hypocrite now?

noel · Post by **noel** » November 26, 2002, 4:23 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Sylvus, only 2 people have even answered the question I posed. I am not asking the question of a baby that is already conceived....twice I have said pre-conception and twice it has been ignored. There will be a day when you can pre-map your child with genetics. My question was merely if you were to have a child in that time, would you check the straight or gay box on the form? Very simple really....there is no "I would leave it however it ended up" option.

First of all, I despise the notion of a form you fill out where you choose every aspect of your childs makeup. The thought of choosing an eye color because, 'light green eyes are all the rage' turns my stomach.

However, to answer your question, if I were faced with a form ahead of time to fill out, I would choose a heterosexual child.

I'm not sure what my personal choice for offspring has to do with whether or not a homosexual couple is capable of being just as good, if not better in some cases, set of parents than a heterosexual couple.

Ooga[foh] · Post by **Ooga[foh]** » November 26, 2002, 4:23 pm

Nothing wrong with homos. Nothing at all. Personally, I'm all about some pussy. A cock and balls or getting fucked in the ass just doesn't ring my bell, but if it rings yours, shit, nothing wrong with that at all. Society acts like programmed robots far too often.

When you finally realize that everyone just wants to bust a nut, its a lot easier to understand homosexuality. Consider it ice cream, some folks prefer different flavors.

I'm thrilled to death about homosexuality, without it, we wouldn't have lesbians. I don't know about you, but I love me some lesbians.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » November 26, 2002, 4:24 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
To each his own. Do I like it? No, but life goes on.
Now if you'd apply this logic to gay adoption, it wouldn't even be an issue. Who's the hypocrite now?

Like I said, if you are not a Christian, then it's not a problem to begin with. Now where did that hypocrit run off to?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 26, 2002, 4:25 pm

Kilmoll,
I think you would be better off admitting you have a prejudice against gays based largely on your interpretation of your religion rather than arguing all that nature crap.

In nature a barron female or sterile male cannot get with a creature of the opposite sex and have children either. I presume, however, you are not opposed to a heterosexual couple where one or more of the parents cannot produce offspring adopting?

Additionally, the problem with your question about whether parent would choose to have a gay or straight child is immaterial to the question about gay adoption. For the record, I would not give a shit, one way or the other, but how does that answer help at all? Assume, even , that my answer was "I would choose to have a straight child." Now, what does that have to do with gays adopting?

Anyway, a much more interesting question you should be asking the audience is why of the 21 people who would choose to not allow gays to adopt, you are and Klaw the only ones willing to argue the point (even if, at least for now, your arguements are horribly flawed).

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 4:26 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Edit: my point here being that you would not willingly pick your child to be gay, but you would willingly pick a child's parents to be gay. Hence the hypocrisy

they are different things.

you are trying to say this.

1. you would not pick your child to be gay
2. because gay is bad
3. therefore gay parents are bad
4. therefore you are a hypocrit

the reason you don't have a logical argument is that you are inserting line 2 into the reasoning -- not the people answering you. Because without it, line 3 does not follow from the premise. And because line 3 is your desired conclusion, you must insert line 2.

garbage in = garbage out

We are not arguing what each person would want in their child. we are arguing whether or not:

Do adult gay couples have the legal right to adopt children?

that has absolutely nothing to do with how people would genetically engineer their children.

Post by **Xouqoa** » November 26, 2002, 4:28 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:still waiting for the first hypocrite to say that they would willingly pick their child to be gay.......
If the Bio Engineer/Doctor told me my child was likely to be gay, I would NOT change it.

You have my answer.

I wouldn't ever alter a pre-child (new buzz word!) genetically before they were born unless they were to be born with a debilitating illness such as downs syndrome or something along those lines. I think the strength of genetic customization lies in preventing illnesses like Cancer and the like, not in choosing what your child looks like. So, I have to agree with Aran.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 26, 2002, 4:33 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Sylvus, only 2 people have even answered the question I posed. I am not asking the question of a baby that is already conceived....twice I have said pre-conception and twice it has been ignored. There will be a day when you can pre-map your child with genetics. My question was merely if you were to have a child in that time, would you check the straight or gay box on the form? Very simple really....there is no "I would leave it however it ended up" option.

Hmm... I couldn't randomize it? I have trouble choosing a restaurant for dinner, I'd probably skip the form and do it the old fashioned way. We'll still be able to do it the old fashioned way, right? Or does your little scenario exactly mirror the movie Gattica? And what the fuck does any of this have to do with gay people adopting children? In your little technologically advanced world, I'm willing to bet that a couple gay fellas could raise their baby made out of their genetic material in a test tube. Uh oh, I've opened up a whole new can of worms...

Melrin_Specclaster · November 26, 2002, 4:39 pm

'Beastiality and homosexuality aren't even in the same league of human behaviour. '

Putting your dick where it doesn't belong does fall into the same category.

And I'm sure gay parents can give a loving home, but I wouldn't want my son watching to guys bang away at each other and believing this to be what his course should be. If gay parents have a kid, no one cause say this would not confuse them in some way.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 4:40 pm

in the future biotechopia, it will be irrelevant anyways.

the gay men will have an embryo made out of stem cells cultured from tissue samples they donated. they won't want to adopt anyways. they'll buy some 3rd world woman to calf the child. lesbians of course have a leg up on this avenue, again no need for semen, when you can get enough of a recombination even during the stem cell hybridization process.

everybody will be enginerring children and even less people will be adopting. ah for the old days when queers just were happy with adopting kids.

ZZtheAssassin · Post by **ZZtheAssassin** » November 26, 2002, 4:42 pm

You know 2 of the most notorius dictators were gay, Hitler and Julius Caesar. As well their were rumors that Joseph Stalin was gay.

While being gay in and of itself may or may not be wrong, the fact that god didnt create adam and steve plays a factor here. I, myself, am a christian, and was catholic with catholic upbringing.

While I tend not to agree with the catholic lifestyle, christianity and catholicisma do have OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS in common. In either case people are people and well as long as they are decent as *people* I wouldnt have a problem with it, but this opinion varies.

Edit: Grammar owns me lol

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » November 26, 2002, 4:43 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote:'Beastiality and homosexuality aren't even in the same league of human behaviour. '

Putting your dick where it doesn't belong does fall into the same category.

And I'm sure gay parents can give a loving home, but I wouldn't want me son watching to guys bang away at each other and believing this to be what his course should be. If gay parents have a kid, no one cause say this would not confuse them in some way.

that is where parenting comes in. if i saw my mom and dad banging as a kid it woudl be confusing, perhaps upsetting. certainly the families we are talking about have unique challenges, but they can be overcome, and the route is through good parenting.

zz: what the fuck are you talking ab00t? christianity and catholicism have a lot in common? yeah i wonder why that is....as for adam and steve: god didnt create adam and eve either. or the women who came from some other "paradise garden" to marry cain and abel.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » November 26, 2002, 4:45 pm

I didn't bother to read the whole thread before this, but has anyone thought about it from the child's viewpoint? Think of the crap he'll have to put up with in school when people find out his parents are homosexual, that might end up making him resent his parents and homosexuals all together.

noel · Post by **noel** » November 26, 2002, 4:45 pm

Melrin_Specclaster wrote:'Beastiality and homosexuality aren't even in the same league of human behaviour. '

Putting your dick where it doesn't belong does fall into the same category.

And I'm sure gay parents can give a loving home, but I wouldn't want me son watching to guys bang away at each other and believing this to be what his course should be. If gay parents have a kid, no one cause say this would not confuse them in some way.

My heterosexual parents never 'banged away at each other' in front of me. The only reason you think gay parents would is because you're ignorant of their lifestyle, and because of that you're prejudging. That my friend, is prejudice.

VeeshanVault

This touched a bit of a nerve. Gay adoption??

Should a homosexual couple be able to adopt children??