 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by orange
just curious...
are you homosexual, Guy? |
No sir. I'm engaged to a beautiful young woman whom I'm madly in love with.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by orange
Yeah, ok that's what I thought. But when you said "all we have" for "our cause" etc...I thought it was you associating her as your messiah of truth or something. |
Just the cause of what is right--allowing homosexuals to be parents. It ought to be "our" cause, for everyone who agrees with it; it shouldn't be limited to homosexuals.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
I can kinda see where you're coming from, but...
Perhaps what you aren't aware of is a movement in this country to outlaw homosexuals from adopting children. In some states, such as Florida, it's already de facto law.
I'm arguing that homosexuals have the right to be given equal consideration in adoption... does that make more sense?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999 time: 15:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Guynemer
I can kinda see where you're coming from, but...
Perhaps what you aren't aware of is a movement in this country to outlaw homosexuals from adopting children. In some states, such as Florida, it's already de facto law.
I'm arguing that homosexuals have the right to be given equal consideration in adoption... does that make more sense? |
Yes, i know what you're talking about. It just doesn't seem right to me, but there are grey areas which make it difficult to argue against. As far as the "right" goes, they can have children, but it involves committing a heterosexual act. For some reason they seem to object to this, but of course if they did, would that make it okay? I won't delve too deeply into this argument because it quickly becomes bogged down in grey areas, and i won't lose sleep over it because it doesn't affect me, and besides, there are more important issues to worry about.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lung
Yes, i know what you're talking about. It just doesn't seem right to me, but there are grey areas which make it difficult to argue against. As far as the "right" goes, they can have children, but it involves committing a heterosexual act. For some reason they seem to object to this, but of course if they did, would that make it okay? I won't delve too deeply into this argument because it quickly becomes bogged down in grey areas, and i won't lose sleep over it because it doesn't affect me, and besides, there are more important issues to worry about. |
Ever hear of sperm banks?
Ever hear of surrogate mothers?
Ever hear of adoption?
Ever hear of test tube fetuses?
For the last time -- direct, actual sex between two people of opposite gender is no longer the only way to conceive. Not even with surrogate mothers -- they can receive the sperm without sex.
And this is definitely an important issue -- just not in your opinion. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999 time: 15:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MrFun
Ever hear of sperm banks?
Ever hear of surrogate mothers?
Ever hear of adoption?
Ever hear of test tube fetuses?
For the last time -- direct, actual sex between two people of opposite gender is no longer the only way to conceive. Not even with surrogate mothers -- they can receive the sperm without sex.
And this is definitely an important issue -- just not in your opinion. |
What i was saying that you can exercise your right to procreate any time you want You don't want to, but you still want children, hence my original statement about arseholes 
And yes, i have heard of those things I simply don't see it as a "right" to have access to such things, as the most important right is that of the child. The only reason i won't take to the streets against homosexual adoption, etcetera, is that i don't have to look far to see parents who do not deserve to bring up children, regardless of their ability to rear them naturally or not.
And no, this is not an important issue to anyone except those with a vested self-interest in it. Don't pretend that it is your god-given right when what it really comes down to is "i have cash, and loads of it. Let me adopt children because i can".
Don't kid yourself that it is a right, when it is more political than moral 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lung
What i was saying that you can exercise your right to procreate any time you want You don't want to, but you still want children, hence my original statement about arseholes 
And yes, i have heard of those things I simply don't see it as a "right" to have access to such things, as the most important right is that of the child. The only reason i won't take to the streets against homosexual adoption, etcetera, is that i don't have to look far to see parents who do not deserve to bring up children, regardless of their ability to rear them naturally or not.
And no, this is not an important issue to anyone except those with a vested self-interest in it. Don't pretend that it is your god-given right when what it really comes down to is "i have cash, and loads of it. Let me adopt children because i can".
Don't kid yourself that it is a right, when it is more political than moral |
Homosexuals do not have the inherent attraction towards the opposite gender that heterosexuals have. So therefore, the conceivement methods that I listed above should be perfectly legal (and they are for heterosexuals) to have a child of their own.
Since homosexuals do not have any inherent attraction towards the opposite gender, how do you propose that homosexual couples obtain a child?? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:18
|
|
Coming a little late to this thread -- burden of being GMT +2 -- but just a quick observation:
Yesterday Brittany Spears' "people" held yet another press conference "clarifying" here current romantic status and her relationship with Justin Timberlake. I am embarrassed that I don't know my sister's phone number, my father-in-law's birthday, or most of my students' last names, but I know this. I'll bet a lot of you know it, too (and, btw, here's a fine cartoon on the topic). I also know that Brittany Spears is, or claims to be, a virgin. I'll bet a lot of you knew that, too.
My point is that way-too-much information is the very stock-in-trade of celebrity. Yet no one here rants about Brittany's disclosures, or the strange domestic world of Angela and Billy Bob, or so on, with anything like the sheer, unmitigated hatred that's on display here. It makes me wonder exactly what button the Rosie disclosure is pushing, and what that says about those whose buttons are being pushed. 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|