Stop trying to be a smartass, I already explained that i'm not talking about current times, but when gay marriage and adoption becomes mainstream. I don't know who you are or where you randomly popped up from but if you took the time to read the past 2 or 3 pages or so, you'll see i've been making my point the whole way through.

I understand what youre saying, but what is your point.

gay parents having gay kids, why is there a problem with this?

everything youre saying is speculation, and i understand the logic behind it, but Why Does It Matter?

 

The human population wont die out because of more gay kids.

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

I have found men attractive in the past and can continue to do so - yet I'm straight. I don't want to have a relationship with a man but I'm sure I could.

Because if it happened so far that gays outpopulated straight people, the human race is [bleep]ed and will slowly decrease. I also already explained this if you care to read. <_<

Skullys point is with gay parents becoming more normal possibly their kids will grow up with gay as the norm and thus be more pre-disposed to being gay.

 

Since its a hypothetical future it cant be said one way or the other, though arguably how statistics stand atm to do with rate of homosexuality in kids in both gay and straight parents care the concept of gay parents creating gay kids more so than straight parents seems to be a total myth.

 

Also human race wouldn't be bleeped if some how gays did outnumber straights. So many gay couples and lesbians already have kids through insemination etc and its a growing trend, heck at this point their close to not even needing sperm and eggs to produce a baby. They've produce fully functional artificial wombs and playing with genetics they are close (decades but still close) to managing to make it so you can basically go some place pick out various traits sir em all up and it growing into a baby.

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

I have found men attractive in the past and can continue to do so - yet I'm straight. I don't want to have a relationship with a man but I'm sure I could.

 

 

Thats true, I have noticed some attractive women, but the general consensus is its not the same attractiveness. It's a more ethereal/spiritual connection, instead of physical attractiveness.

 

 

Thats true, I have noticed some attractive women, but the general consensus is its not the same attractiveness. It's a more ethereal/spiritual connection, instead of physical attractiveness.

 

hm so has a girl ever made you hard?

 

edit: before the castration i mean

Something I always find curious:

Many straight anti-gay people insist it is a choice; but if pushed on the matter of them TRYING to be attracted to someone of the same gender sexual they will say they can't, they don't think of them that way etc.

Does this not kinda prove its not a choice, if you as a straight person cant by choice find someone of the same gender attractive; why does it make sense that a homosexual can of chosen to do so?

I have found men attractive in the past and can continue to do so - yet I'm straight. I don't want to have a relationship with a man but I'm sure I could.

 

 

Thats true, I have noticed some attractive women, but the general consensus is its not the same attractiveness. It's a more ethereal/spiritual connection, instead of physical attractiveness.

 

Yeah your pulling on a different kind of attractive there guy 4 life.

Just because your able to say yes they are attractive and think of them as an attractive person doesn't mean you are sexually attracted to them.

 

I mean my best friend is a girl and I think she's gorgeous and would say she is very attractive. But there's absolutely no sexual content to it.

Because if it happened so far that gays outpopulated straight people, the human race is [bleep]ed and will slowly decrease. I also already explained this if you care to read. <_<

But you've presented no evidence other than your opinion that that'll happen.

You rationalize that seeing gay affection will cause kids to become gay, but ignore seeing straight affection also "causes" gay children.

 

a study determined that around 8.8 million people in the united states are homosexual.

if each got in a pair together (wouldnt happen, some people never become partners with others), 4.4 million pairs.

okay, and then each pair adopted two children (wouldnt happen, not everyone adopts, and maybe would only adopt 1)

and 50% of those children become gay. (pure speculation)

4.4 million new gay children. + the 5 million gay children from straight people, 9.4 million new gay people.

 

meanwhile, straight people continue to have mostly straight children, around 9/10.

lets say theres only 50 million straight people.

and they all make pairs, 25 million straight couples.

and they all have 2 kids, 90% of those kids being straight.

45 million new straight children.

 

obviously not all straight people have children, and obviously not all gay people adopt.

 

the gay population is a lot smaller than the straight population, you have no evidence of how gay parents affect the sexuality of their kids, something like 9/10 of all children born are straight.

You're going round in circles now..

i generally think gays are pretty creepy

 

i think the gay manager at work fancies me, hes always trying to hug me and giving me these sly smiles and it makes me feel really awkward

 

the gays who go round 'flaunting their sexuality proudly' really do my head in - i dont ponce around them putting on shows of being 'extra straight and PROUD man!!! yeahh represent!! IMMA GO [bleep] ME SOME WOMENS!!!' because that would be weird and socially unacceptable. be gay, but dont be weird k?

 

on topic:

 

if they want to get 'married' thats their business, but DONT do it in a holy building dedicated to a god who 'forbids' it - thats true disrespect

 

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.(Leviticus 18:22 KJV)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

 

same goes for people who disrepect other laws of god tho tbh, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, gossips, drunkards, idolaters, the whole shebang - if you aint a chrizhead, dont [bleep]in dedicate the entirety of your lovelife to the christian god in a christian temple - makes sense no?

 

edit: bloody hell i log into facebook and that managers just added me :( think he just wants to be friends??

 

Ok thats like my mom. My mom had these totally pyscho lesbian friends as a teenager who tried to make her gay. Now she thinks all gays are like those two young women. yh. they're not.

 

Also that bible verse is referring to something that isn't relevant anymore, so it doesn't hold any weight anymore.

 

 

Thats true, I have noticed some attractive women, but the general consensus is its not the same attractiveness. It's a more ethereal/spiritual connection, instead of physical attractiveness.

 

hm so has a girl ever made you hard?

 

No. hell no. girls gross me out. seriously. just something about them gives me the creeps.

You're going round in circles now..

Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children

and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.

You're going round in circles now..

Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children

and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.

 

Jeeze drop it already!

 

Skully has already made clear this is a hypothetical POSSIBLITY that cannot be proved.

Equally you cannot disproved it.

We've covered all the current facts and figures that suggest it wouldn't happen, but its not totally impossible or disproven.

 

It's just boring now.

You're going round in circles now..

Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children

and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.

And a question from someone firmly on the 'nature' side of things...

How would homosexuality have come up if gay parents are a factor? Up until recently anything other than a man + woman raising a child (inc. single parents) would cause people to break out the torches and pitchforks, and homosexuality still existed.

You're going round in circles now..

Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children

and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.

 

Jeeze drop it already!

 

Skully has already made clear this is a hypothetical POSSIBLITY that cannot be proved.

Equally you cannot disproved it.

We've covered all the current facts and figures that suggest it wouldn't happen, but its not totally impossible or disproven.

 

It's just boring now.

Hah sorry.

Id just like him to back up his opinions with facts.

 

He can say "gay parents = more gay children" as an opinion and hypothetical possibility, but cant just run with this idea and act like it justifies all hes saying. Because of this hypothetical possibility, does he reject the idea of gay people being allowed to adopt? Thats where I see it going. if not, then uhh, thanks for the hypothetical possibility that may, but probably wont, raise its head in something like the year 2780.

You're going round in circles now..

Give me proof that gay parents = more gay children

and proof that this will eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.

And a question from someone firmly on the 'nature' side of things...

How would homosexuality have come up if gay parents are a factor? Up until recently anything other than a man + woman raising a child (inc. single parents) would cause people to break out the torches and pitchforks, and homosexuality still existed.

 

That touches on an issue I saw raised in comedy but intrigues me.

 

People say gay couples shuldnt have kids as the child lacks a mother or a father.

Fair enough if thats you opinion.

 

But surely if you think a kid absolutely MUST be raised with both all single parents should have their children taken away until such time as they are no longer single?

 

Ok thats like my mom. My mom had these totally pyscho lesbian friends as a teenager who tried to make her gay. Now she thinks all gays are like those two young women. yh. they're not.

 

Also that bible verse is referring to something that isn't relevant anymore, so it doesn't hold any weight anymore.

 

i reckon its up to the religious practitioners to decide whats relevant and holds weight in their own holy books - many believe that pretty much everything god told them has importance and meaning, to this day

 

 

but for the sake of arguement i wikied another one

 

n the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p. 5). It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[1] Hilborn (2002, p. 6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in the gospel of God's Son (cf. v.9), but also in the very creation of the world (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

 

would it be so hard to respect those beliefs and get married elsewhere?

 

as for thinking 'all gays are like that' - i dont really agree, i liked it when my gf got off with girls for me at parties etc so i dont think im homophobic

 

just phobic of the gays who are fullon in your face 'flaunty and flirty' - they exist, and they piss me off

 

guys who do that to girls are known as [puncture]s and sleazeballs - but to take offence to a gay behaving like that is 'homophobic'

 

No. hell no. girls gross me out. seriously. just something about them gives me the creeps.

 

when i said the same thing about blokes i was called a homophobic troll :(

That touches on an issue I saw raised in comedy but intrigues me.

 

People say gay couples shuldnt have kids as the child lacks a mother or a father.

Fair enough if thats you opinion.

 

But surely if you think a kid absolutely MUST be raised with both all single parents should have their children taken away until such time as they are no longer single?

A related example I've been wondering about...

A heterosexual single mother/father who lives with his/her sibling/parent of the same sex. The sibling/parent helps raise the child.

 

I'd think that in both your example and mine people could go on to say that they still have some heterosexual influence in their life.

@Gidion

 

You seem to be on a random tact tht makes no sense your line appears to be:

Gay marriage is a bad thing because faiths that do not accept homosexuality shouldn't be made to marry gays.

 

The thing is the actual proposed law under discussion here does NOT say that.

It's purpose is simply that any religious group that ALLOWS gays we be allowed to marry gay couples, because under current law gays can ONLY have a civil partnership (a 100% legal only non-religious status)

Its not gonna be you roman catholic must marry these two men, its only gonna make it legally allowed for religions to offer marriage to same sex couples if they so wish.

@Gidion

 

You seem to be on a random tact tht makes no sense your line appears to be:

Gay marriage is a bad thing because faiths that do not accept homosexuality shouldn't be made to marry gays.

 

The thing is the actual proposed law under discussion here does NOT say that.

It's purpose is simply that any religious group that ALLOWS gays we be allowed to marry gay couples, because under current law gays can ONLY have a civil partnership (a 100% legal only non-religious status)

Its not gonna be you roman catholic must marry these two men, its only gonna make it legally allowed for religions to offer marriage to same sex couples if they so wish.

 

then whats the problem? marriage is just a word - in kenya a bloke just has to send the father of the bride an acceptable number of goats, and the father boots her out - hey presto 'married' under common law

 

youve all spent pages debating what 'might possibly happen in the future to population demographics should gay marriages become widespread' get a grip guys, there's no accurate data to guess this - you has just got to wait and see, especially when you ignore the impact of artificial insemination, sperm banks and surrogate mothers

 

Ok thats like my mom. My mom had these totally pyscho lesbian friends as a teenager who tried to make her gay. Now she thinks all gays are like those two young women. yh. they're not.

 

Also that bible verse is referring to something that isn't relevant anymore, so it doesn't hold any weight anymore.

 

i reckon its up to the religious practitioners to decide whats relevant and holds weight in their own holy books - many believe that pretty much everything god told them has importance and meaning, to this day

 

 

but for the sake of arguement i wikied another one

 

n the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27 (EMTV), Paul writes

For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

This has been described as "the most important biblical reference for the homosexuality debate" (Hilborn 2002, p. 5). It is also the only apparent reference in the Bible to female homosexuality, though some maintain that this prohibition applies only to male homosexuals.[1] Hilborn (2002, p. 6) argues that in the wider passage (Romans 1:18-32) Paul writes that the "global scope of salvation history has been made manifest not only in the gospel of God's Son (cf. v.9), but also in the very creation of the world (v.20)." In common with many traditional commentators, Hilborn (2002, p.7) goes on to argue that condemnation of homosexual activity is derived from the "broad contours" of Paul's argument, in addition to the selective reading of individual words or phrases.

 

would it be so hard to respect those beliefs and get married elsewhere?

 

as for thinking 'all gays are like that' - i dont really agree, i liked it when my gf got off with girls for me at parties etc so i dont think im homophobic

 

just phobic of the gays who are fullon in your face 'flaunty and flirty' - they exist, and they piss me off

 

guys who do that to girls are known as [puncture]s and sleazeballs - but to take offence to a gay behaving like that is 'homophobic'

 

No. hell no. girls gross me out. seriously. just something about them gives me the creeps.

 

when i said the same thing about blokes i was called a homophobic troll :(

 

 

It depends on the context (in respect to the last part)

 

IN all honesty I'm a heterophobe. I honestly don't approve of heterosexual relationships. However, I realized early on it's an irrational, and impractical belief. So I tend not to tell people. I guess thats why I value open mindedness so dearly, because I will be the first to admit I believe in very crazy things. I believe a big invisible man created the universe by speaking, and in all honesty I would die for this invisible man which science can't prove exists.

 

But yea.. like i love all my girlfriends to death, but when I'm bored I try to envision them sexually, infact sometimes I watch straight porn I guess to try and see why they like it so much. I try to understand heterosexuals and I honestly can't. I guess thats why I don't mind people like Skully, because I'm like him if even just the opposite.

 

Alright then, imagine there are an equal amount of gay families as straight ones. That one gay family decides to adopt a kid, that kid then lives and grows up seeing those two guys affection etc. He grows up thinking it is normal, or the 'right' thing to do, so he follows the path. He never has second thoughts about it even if he sees straight couples, because that is how he grew up so therefore that must be correct.

 

Never going to happen. Heterosexuals do and always will vastly out number homosexuals, and so what if the kid becomes a homosexual? Is he going to die or something if he becomes a homosexual? No. Homosexuals will ALWAYS be in the minority, by a lot. This is a [developmentally delayed]ed scenario

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

 

I mean to be honest I think it's a valid argument. Not that it's true, but it's a reasonable conclusion that if a baby can only be born with a man and a woman, that both would excel at raising it. A yin and yang approach by all logical means should produce balanced beings, though in reality it rarely does.

I personally think the "Child lacks a (Mother/Father) influence" argument is invalid. It's not illegal for a single parent to raise a child (Wether it be from a spouse's death, divorce, adoption...ect), so why should it matter?

 

I mean to be honest I think it's a valid argument. Not that it's true, but it's a reasonable conclusion that if a baby can only be born with a man and a woman, that both would excel at raising it. A yin and yang approach by all logical means should produce balanced beings, though in reality it rarely does.

 

Not necessarily:

 

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/families/a/ParentStudy.htm

 

(Sorry for the rather "vocal" article writer, it's the first article Google offered.)

I thought it was just about "teh marriage is sacred!"? The right wing religious zealots reveal their true colors any chance that they get, and soon they won't be able to hide behind the religious refuge anymore:

 

Hawaii's governor vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have permitted same-sex civil unions, ending weeks of speculation about what she would do with the contentious, emotionally charged issue.

 

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle acted on the last day she had to sign the bill, veto the bill or allow it to become law without her signature. The Legislature had approved it in late April.

 

"There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage," Lingle said at a news conference. "I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0707-hawaii-veto-20100707,0,3449228.story

 

This is the person who vetoed it: