Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[djo0]

Because, unlike rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

 

 

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

[guss]

Who says it has to be "gay merrage" what about Cival Union

 

What about going back to school so you can spell words correctly?

 

 

 

 

 

Its not how i spell, its wht i mean, Any ways its still summer (for me) so i get to kick back a bit, any ways this forum isnt about critisizing, thats wht ive learned over the years.

[forsaken]

 

well, as a Canadian you know Australia better then me! But Russia, Northern Canada, Iceland, etc still stands as "empty" places, as well as many other countries.

 

 

 

I myself was about to comment about Australia's lack of water, so consider this a re-affirmation.

quot;]

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

 

 

 

On what basis does your conception of an 'ideal environment' stem from? To me it seems like your reasoning for it is circular. Similar to trying to define a word by using the word itself. Why is a mother and father the ideal parent-couple for a child?

 

 

 

Does it stem from the fact that you believe a homosexual couple will unduly influence the child's development? If so, I beg to differ: the mere existence of homosexuality serves as a telling counter-argument. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that many homosexuals have 'come out of the closet' when they themselves were raised in such an 'ideal' environment.

 

 

 

The point of the matter is - the child, when grown - can by and large make their own decisions regarding their sexuality, a fact we see concreted by the existence of homosexuals in the first instance.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

 

 

So by your logic every child raised by divorced parents where they basically live with one parents is also in jeopardy? Wow, well you better get busy, you've got a lot of kids to save, like half the country or so.

[The Dark Lord]

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

 

 

So by your logic every child raised by divorced parents where they basically live with one parents is also in jeopardy? Wow, well you better get busy, you've got a lot of kids to save, like half the country or so.

 

 

 

I know a guy that lost his father at a very early age and was raised by his mother. He turned out masculine.

 

 

 

It does not matter how you are raised. Masculinity/Feminity is manipulated by how the brain developed.

[atestarossa]

my sight on this.. first to say, i'm a christian.. but i think the bible can be read on different ways about this... (my quotes now might be a little wrong, as i'm just trying to translate from the norwegian verson) paulus writes that the love is biggest of all in this world, that it beats everything, can stand against everything, and belives everything.

 

 

 

I do not think that homosexuaility is a choise you make, but that you are created the way you are, and therefore have no choice, and if God have created you that way, and that love is the greatest thing that are, why should it then be wrong.

 

 

 

In the state church of Norway, it's a split about what people think about it. Most of the people agree that it's something you are born with, so you can't do anything about it that way. But what they do dis-agree about, is if they should be allowed to practise out their sexuality. As being boy/girlfriends.

 

 

 

i would love to write more about this subject, but i'm going to school now :P

[warri0r45]

Because, unlike horny rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species.

 

 

 

If you're an amish, conservative christian/muslim/tribal, be my guest and have 10 kids and once they're 15, tell them to get even more kids. Just don't run around telling people that's the universal meaning of life.

 

 

 

I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people.

 

 

 

So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

 

 

 

Even though our world is getting "overpopulated" our earth has room for billions more. Here in Canada we have the North West Territories, which combined is about the size of India, that has maybe 75-125,000 people living in them. About 1-2 millionm people can live in those areas COMFORTABLY, and most of you say" its to cold . " well if Global Warming is real its only going to get warmer their right? The conditions their are still livable if you have the right needs(clothes,shelter,etc). Austrailia is also another example of lots of more space. However, I do understand that about 50%+ of it is VERY hot and is hard to live in. Their is the space however, places like Russia, tons of Canada, Iceland, etc, have tons more space. So overpopulated isnt a problem->yet. I believ any household should be able to get how many kids they want, at the same time i DONT blame China for making a law on how many kids you can have. Their already billions their, and more willbe to much. I think their limit is 1...or 2.

 

 

 

Please, count Australia out of your brave new world. Not enough water. More people = Australia dies in the bum.

 

 

 

Oh and overpopulation is a sustainability issue, not simply an issue of there not being enough room. A key aspect in sustainability would be having water, for example. Did you know you can fit the entire worlds population in 80km squared? I've gotta say I'd much prefer we make the world a better, more stable and sustainable place before potentially screwing it up even more by opening the flood gates to 'go forth and multiply.'

 

 

 

well, as a Canadian you know Australia better then me! But Russia, Northern Canada, Iceland, etc still stands as "empty" places, as well as many other countries.

 

 

 

Yes, yes, I understand that fact. My post was alluding to the sustainability issues concerning overcrowiding using Australia as an example. Carrying capacity of a population isn't solely dependant on space avaliable to inhabit. The example I put foreward demonstrated this.

[warri0r45]

Because, unlike rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

 

 

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

 

 

Technically, that's a point against homosexuals having children and not against homosexuality.

 

 

 

Would you see any problem in two homosexuals not adopting children into thier family and rather just acting on thier feelings for one another in a controlled, unharmful and consenting manner?

[Led-Zeppelin]

Because, unlike rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

 

 

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

 

 

 

I was raised soley by my mother, I turned out fine.

[Guest]

Religious faith isn't a justification for an opinion. Like BlueLancer, I would hope you can formulate an opinion for yourself instead of having a book tell you how to live your life.

 

 

 

How dare you insult my religion like that. Its far from a book its what I live by, and you would have no idea on how its change me and my families life and the millions of other believers too, around the globe.

 

 

 

I'm insulted also that such a comment could come from someone representing Tip.it. Not only does it fall under religious discrimination but its insulting.

 

 

 

I have no reason to argue with you on your other comments, I've already shown that your a mindless idiot and you've just restated the same argument again and again. An opinion is an opinion, not something which needs to be backed up by fact, just as having an opinion on your favourite sporting team needs not to be backed up by fact.

 

 

 

And concerning your response on using something like this in an exam - why would I state a religious opinion in an exam? Don't use such pathetic parallels. You seriously have the mind of an idiot.

 

 

 

I'm leaving it here, I'm insulted, and you've shown that you don't have to abide by the rules to be a tip.it Staff member. I have no respect for someone such as you, so I'm leaving it here, I'm not going to bother replying to your crap any longer.

[GrimHams]

Because, unlike rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

 

 

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

 

 

 

I agree, its extremely important to have a mother and father figure growing up, and gay people are neither if i'm allowed to be so bold. Its fair enough some people saying "i turned out fine with only a mum" or even a gay couple but i don't think it should be encouraged considering the social implications and the fact that they will grow up and probably be influenced by their "parents".

 

 

 

 

 

I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

 

 

 

The most intelligent thing i've heard all day. (i just woke up but meh).

 

 

 

An opinion is an opinion, not something which needs to be backed up by fact, just as having an opinion on your favourite sporting team needs not to be backed up by fact.

 

 

 

Not meaning to get off topic but surely you need some fact to back up your opinion or you could literally say anything. All standing opinions are based on fact, if i said "hitler was a great man" i'd have 5 good reasons for thinking this, if i said "hitler was a great man" and you said "why?" and i responded with "i dont need to justify it, its my opinion" i'd be talking rubbish.

 

 

 

I'm sorry that you can't back up your beliefs on religion but that doesn't mean you can try to stop people pointing out that you have no real reason for believing it, other than some abstract reason. I'm not against religion at all, it does some good in the world (mostly bad) so don't get the idea that i'm against religion.

[assassin_696]

[hide]

Because, unlike rabbits, I don't believe the sole purpose of a human life is to produce more humans. Heck, the planet is polluting and running out of resources because so many of us suckers are running around. Give the world 12 billion people in a few decades... Give the people of the world hell.

 

 

 

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive.

 

 

 

Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

 

 

 

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled.

 

 

 

I was raised soley by my mother, I turned out fine.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Yeah, I mean one of my friends' mum is a lesbian, and he's turned out fine. His father's been in his life, so he's had a male influence, but not as much as most kids.

[Jaziek]

My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have.

 

 

 

So by your logic every child raised by divorced parents where they basically live with one parents is also in jeopardy? Wow, well you better get busy, you've got a lot of kids to save, like half the country or so.

 

 

 

I know a guy that lost his father at a very early age and was raised by his mother. He turned out masculine.

 

 

 

It does not matter how you are raised. Masculinity/Feminity is manipulated by how the brain developed.

 

 

 

Enviroment does have an effect. It may not be as important as the way the brain develops but it still has an effect.

[Kant]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

 

Where's the logic in that? You've missed a big part of that. Where does it say that just because you can have children, it means you'd be good at raising them up? I'm intrigued as to where you've crossed that bridge...

[Kant]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

 

Where's the logic in that? You've missed a big part of that. Where does it say that just because you can have children, it means you'd be good at raising them up? I'm intrigued as to where you've crossed that bridge...

 

 

 

I said generally.

 

 

 

Are you saying that those who are incapable of having children are somehow biologically wired to be good parents? I would think from an evolutionary standpoint that those animals that are sexually compatible would also be biologically predisposed towards parenting together.

[Faux]

The two homosexuals I know of turned out to be straight so I'd rather not express my opinion :lol:

[speedofsound]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

 

Where's the logic in that? You've missed a big part of that. Where does it say that just because you can have children, it means you'd be good at raising them up? I'm intrigued as to where you've crossed that bridge...

 

 

 

I said generally.

 

 

 

Are you saying that those who are incapable of having children are somehow biologically wired to be good parents? I would think from an evolutionary standpoint that those animals that are sexually compatible would also be biologically predisposed towards parenting together.

 

 

 

I don't think your capabilitie of having kids comes into it at all. It has to do with your values and what you consider whats right and wrong, not whether you can produce kids or not. Like having two fathers, jsut because they arn't able to make kids doesn't mean, they would be a worse father than other straight couples.

[THEMASKEDMAN52]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

 

 

 

I think it would be better to have gay or lesbian parents. They'd be teaching the kid(s) tolerance. Not to say heterosexuals don't, but not all heterosexuals do. In nature many animals are raised by neither parent. And they can be masculine, feminine, gay, lesbian, even transsexual.

 

 

 

I know plenty of adopted children with two moms or two dads, and one with a transsexual mother. Last I checked they were all straight, avid partakers in their community, church goers, and very very stable.

[Defender2516]

Don't worry guys, apparently our society has it covered.

 

 

 

If we all become gay, its a crime to humanity because the human race will become extinct in a few decades.

 

 

 

But doing it on a small scale is A. O.K! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

/End Sacarasm.

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Satenza]

 

 

 

But doing it on a small scale is A. O.K! :thumbsup:

 

 

 

/End Sacarasm.

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

So why is doing it on small scale not okay then. Please stop jumping from one thing to another without explaining it because it has made no sense.

[Sumpta]

I would think it's only logical to assume that if it takes a mother and a father to create a child it would generally be best for the mother and the father to raise the child.

 

 

 

I think it would be better to have gay or lesbian parents. They'd be teaching the kid(s) tolerance. Not to say heterosexuals don't, but not all heterosexuals do. In nature many animals are raised by neither parent. And they can be masculine, feminine, gay, lesbian, even transsexual.

 

 

 

I know plenty of adopted children with two moms or two dads, and one with a transsexual mother. Last I checked they were all straight, avid partakers in their community, church goers, and very very stable.

 

 

 

In cross-reference to the abortion thread: gay couples who want children choose consciously for having kids and often (in the case of adoption) get reviewed by social security and a herd of psychologists. How could they be worse parents than -say- a careless drug addict teenager who got pregnant against her will (yes, exaggerating for effect, I'm sure you get the point).

[Satenza]

Your analogy makes no sense - here i'll break it down for you.

 

 

 

Homosexuality on a small scale - Humans don't become extinct.

 

 

 

Throwing a grenade - Damage done.

 

 

 

I can only assume that you're comparing damage done to human extinction which does not mean anything in this case since there is nothing to compare small scale damage to. Unless you want to explain it a little more.

[SuziAngel]

I think it would be better to have gay or lesbian parents. They'd be teaching the kid(s) tolerance. Not to say heterosexuals don't, but not all heterosexuals do. In nature many animals are raised by neither parent. And they can be masculine, feminine, gay, lesbian, even transsexual.

 

 

 

I know plenty of adopted children with two moms or two dads, and one with a transsexual mother. Last I checked they were all straight, avid partakers in their community, church goers, and very very stable.

 

 

 

I don't think it would be any better to have homosexual parents. But I don't think it would be any worse either. As far as I'm aware, people's parenting skills are not affected by their sexual preferences (unless of course they stray into the realms of paedophilia, but that isn't the issue here). Think about it, you're saying that you would make a better parent than me because you're homosexual and I'm not. I know that's probably not what you meant, but I think your use of the term "better" may have been an unwise decision.

 

 

 

People should be regarded as individuals and not be judged by their sexuality.

[Satenza]

Flame and hatemongering removed, EDIT

 

 

 

No what the hell are you talking about. How can you relate something like "killing a few people" and low scale homosexuality. Killing people - damage and harm done, being gay - no damage and harm done. Stop using this analogy because it makes no sense.