i think the issue lies in, if heterosexuals can freely choose to undergo assisted reproduction, why not homosexuals? why should one being given such rights and not the other? it is a very vaild question.
and an equally valid arguement is that since a homosexual couple cant "father" a child of their own (at most one of them can be the child's parent)....they may as well raise a child already born but orphaned/abandoned, rather than risking a lot of trauma for another yet-unborn child.
i mean that though unfortunate things like a child being orphaned or abandoned does happen, to deliberately engineer trauma for a child seems very harsh to the child and very selfish of the hosexual couple.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
i think the issue lies in, if heterosexuals can freely choose to undergo assisted reproduction, why not homosexuals? why should one being given such rights and not the other? it is a very vaild question.
Good point. But then it comes down to who can afford it and who can't. At least these issues are being brought up and worked out, and society needs to put down the double mocha and slow down and realize this isn't going to be a balck and white debate. It is going to take some time and understanding. Evolution??
fine,,.. but lets have on answer in a simple yes or no everyone....
SHOULD A CHILD HAVE/DOES A CHILD DESERVE TO HAVE, TWO SAME-SEX ADULTS FOR HIS/HER PARENTS ???
it's not a simple yes/no question. 'should'....'deserve'....seems the wrong language. i say, a child should/deserves to have a loving/supportive home environment...and that can come in many guises. a traditional nuclear family, a same sex couple, a single parent household, grandparents, aunts/uncles....etc. it is not a yes/no thing. unless you want to say "should homosexuals be allowed the right to adopt and or undergo assistive reproduction technology to raise a child." i would say yes. if all other criteria that heterosexual couples must meet to be apporoved for such are met, the same rules should apply, and no couple should be denied parental rights based on sexual orientation alone.
and an equally valid arguement is that since a homosexual couple cant "father" a child of their own (at most one of them can be the child's parent)....they may as well raise a child already born but orphaned/abandoned, rather than risking a lot of trauma for another yet-unborn child.
i mean that though unfortunate things like a child being orphaned or abandoned does happen, to deliberately engineer trauma for a child seems very harsh to the child and very selfish of the hosexual couple.
and the same could be said for heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. some go the route of surrogates, etc. while i understand where you are coming from, if society has already deemed these things "OK" for hetero couples, i fail to see how it could be right to deny these same rights simply b/c someone is homosexual. you can say hetero couples are very 'selfish' then for going to great lengths to have their own child. selfish or not, we as a society have deemed it ok for them to be selfish. however, just b/c one can easil get pregnant and give bitrth...and another cannot...why is one more 'selfish' than the other? aren't they both equally 'selfish' then for wanting to reproduce in the first place...to rather have their own offspring rather than adopt? i think the bottomline is...why the double-standard? and why should you or i get to decide what is 'right' for a couple in regarsds to their wants/desires for a family? why is it on for heteros and not homosexcuals..who draws the line, where and why?
meatwagon - absolutely true...and that has always been the case. i don't really have a problem there. many things in this world are based on the ability to 'afford' it.....now while i think basic healthcare shouldn't be one of em...other things, i don't take issue. even adoption is a very pricey route...thus only who can truly 'afford' it will do so.
weren't you the asshole who called gays an evolutionary dead-end and essntially worthless human beings?
you sputtered out a completely unfounded (and considering actual scientific theory, disproven) statement about evolution.
get your head out of your ass.
When did I use the word worthless? If you physically can't produce offsrping then what is your argument re: evolution and natural selection again? Where is your basis for fact to the contrary Mr Evolution?
your last statement is hilarious....and hypocritical.
i think the issue lies in, if heterosexuals can freely choose to undergo assisted reproduction, why not homosexuals? why should one being given such rights and not the other? it is a very vaild question.
Yes very valid question.. In essence I say no to both. Why must we continually deviate from nature to suit ourselves and our desires? Why does man continually play god in determing the natural flow of life? I dunno, it's never proven to be wise, only problematic.
Yes very valid question.. In essence I say no to both. Why must we continually deviate from nature to suit ourselves and our desires? Why does man continually play god in determing the natural flow of life? I dunno, it's never proven to be wise, only problematic.
yes, i thought i understood you correctly. and i neither agree/disagree with your there..i think it's personal choice..and could be said for many things humanity 'messes with'.
however, if we focus on your evolutionary ideas...i still have to ask....why do you deem homosexuality a 'flaw'? i agree, in theory, with the evolutionary dead-end...same for a hetero who is infertile. however, why can't this all be part of nature's plan? why can't there be some trigger within genetics, so that say - 10% of the population is either homosexual or infertile...so that sure...the species continues with the other 90% of the species that procreates...and then these select few within the species ARE meant to be as the are....to keep population in balance, to keep our ecosystem sustainable...to have other minds/hands within the clan/pack/family...to offer a supportive role to all? why is that not the possible role of such...why must it only be seen as a flaw, and not merely another function within nature and the species? personally, think it is very possible/probable...and thus, valuable.
rightondude, are you agianst medicin, chemo therapy, condoms...?
Some medecine yes definitely. Lots (tons) of bad medecine(s) $$$ out there. I see no harm in prolonging ones life by scientifical means available re: chemo. However one should realize that trying to produce a child while pumped full of radiation and chemicals is a very bad idea. Condom use is wise today. That's like saying I'm against masturbation or having wet dreams...
yes, i thought i understood you correctly. and i neither agree/disagree with your there..i think it's personal choice..and could be said for many things humanity 'messes with'.
however, if we focus on your evolutionary ideas...i still have to ask....why do you deem homosexuality a 'flaw'? i agree, in theory, with the evolutionary dead-end...same for a hetero who is infertile. however, why can't this all be part of nature's plan? why can't there be some trigger within genetics, so that say - 10% of the population is either homosexual or infertile...so that sure...the species continues with the other 90% of the species that procreates...and then these select few within the species ARE meant to be as the are....to keep population in balance, to keep our ecosystem sustainable...to have other minds/hands within the clan/pack/family...to offer a supportive role to all? why is that not the possible role of such...why must it only be seen as a flaw, and not merely another function within nature and the species? personally, think it is very possible/probable...and thus, valuable.
Sure there is a role to play for HS in today's society. I'm all for balance. Evolution would show anything that fails to reproduce in nature is eliminated in short order. Surrogate mothering would/could appear to allow for variations on the seemingly intended convention. This could very well explain bisexuality. Fundamentalist gays cannot carry forward genetic imprints of themselves, and that would lead to a falling away of the entire phenomena over time. As I said in an earlier post: you can't hand homosexuality a crutch (baby) and pretend it can walk like the rest of us. My views are purely from an evolutionary standpoint, and based on the simple fact that if a species were to change in any way so that they do not have sexual procreation, they would become extinct over time. Who can argue this? I mean omg!!.... Extrapolation of the condition is required, perhaps that's the problem with most people here. Thinking beyond now. Some would site god as reasons. I am taking a stance purely on the evolutionary aspects as God as an argument is no basis for argument at all.
That is not to say I don't consider a higher power as reality either.
Anyhow...wow... what can I say...it's like pulling teeth on this forum to get an intelligent, informed conversation going for some reason.
Sure there is a role to play for HS in today's society. I'm all for balance. Evolution would show anything that fails to reproduce in nature is eliminated in short order. Surrogate mothering would/could appear to allow for variations on the seemingly intended convention. This could very well explain bisexuality. Fundamentalist gays cannot carry forward genetic imprints of themselves, and that would lead to a falling away of the entire phenomena over time. As I said in an earlier post: you can't hand homosexuality a crutch (baby) and pretend it can walk like the rest of us. My views are purely from an evolutionary standpoint, and based on the simple fact that if a species were to change in any way so that they do not have sexual procreation, they would become extinct over time. Who can argue this? I mean omg!!.... Extrapolation of the condition is required, perhaps that's the problem with most people here. Thinking beyond now. Some would site god as reasons. I am taking a stance purely on the evolutionary aspects as God as an argument is no basis for argument at all.
That is not to say I don't consider a higher power as reality either.
Anyhow...wow... what can I say...it's like pulling teeth on this forum to get an intelligent, informed conversation going for some reason.
Anyhow I'm done on the issue....
hmmmm....apologies if mine, or anyone else's discussion is not 'intelligent enough'....:rolleyes:
as i have agreeed, endlessly......yes, a purely homosexual person will have their genetic traits dies off with them....where do you see any proof of it ONLY being carried within homosexuals? obviously, someone had to birth the homosexual...and obviously that person had to be hetero, or at least bisexual...i guess what i am really looking for is where exactly are you putting the 'roots' of this apparent flaw? somewhere, back in human history....homosexuality began. why is it do you believe that it was not there from the get-go? why is it seem as a glitch somewhere, as something that went 'wrong'...whereas it could easily be viewed as purposeful of nature...for the reasons i list, or who knows why else? i do not pretend to understand nature in it's entirety, i don't think anyone can...it is too vast and always evolving......but it simply seems to me that since homosexuality has existed as long as it has...who even knows when it began....and it certainly could have a function. many things can be seen as 'flaw's perhaps...and not be at all..i think it is perception.
btw - any idea of god does not figure into my thinking at all...and yes, i am not thinking of just 'now'..i am thinking of the past and how we mayv'e come to now, and also the future and what roles we all may play. unless homosexuality became the ONLY sexual orientation, huiman beings will continue to exist...unless something else destroys us un related to reproduction...so i just don't see it as a 'flaw'...and more like perhaps a check in the system of population control, built right into human genetics.
hmmmm....apologies if mine, or anyone else's discussion is not 'intelligent enough'....:rolleyes:
as i have agreeed, endlessly......yes, a purely homosexual person will have their genetic traits dies off with them....where do you see any proof of it ONLY being carried within homosexuals? obviously, someone had to birth the homosexual...and obviously that person had to be hetero, or at least bisexual...i guess what i am really looking for is where exactly are you putting the 'roots' of this apparent flaw? somewhere, back in human history....homosexuality began. why is it do you believe that it was not there from the get-go? why is it seem as a glitch somewhere, as something that went 'wrong'...whereas it could easily be viewed as purposeful of nature...for the reasons i list, or who knows why else? i do not pretend to understand nature in it's entirety, i don't think anyone can...it is too vast and always evolving......but it simply seems to me that since homosexuality has existed as long as it has...who even knows when it began....and it certainly could have a function. many things can be seen as 'flaw's perhaps...and not be at all..i think it is perception.
.
also just on the whole homosexual traditions through history.... the ancient greeks and romans had huge orgies with men and women..... men doing men, women doing women, men doing women etc etc. in some ways back then they were far more accepting and enlightened that some people today
Anyhow...wow... what can I say...it's like pulling teeth on this forum to get an intelligent, informed conversation going for some reason.
Anyhow I'm done on the issue....
I mean, god for bid anyone who disagrees with you in any way is most obviously ignorant and unintelligent.
I guess my high IQ score and my biology/biochemistry degree doesn't mean much as far as talking about some issues such as biology or evolution.
Peers are the worst mental terrorists u can ever imagine, so , I'm sorry, but no :(
i take your point but then kids pick on you for anything. you can have different coloured parents, you might be fat, you might be thin, you have big teeth, you wear glasses, big feet, different religion, race..... i dont think you would get picked on more if you had gay parents than if you were one of the few coloured kids in a white dominant school
i take your point but then kids pick on you for anything. you can have different coloured parents, you might be fat, you might be thin, you have big teeth, you wear glasses, big feet, different religion, race..... i dont think you would get picked on more if you had gay parents than if you were one of the few coloured kids in a white dominant school
Now if you were a fat, big teeth having, glasses wearing, bigfooted muslim with one black father and another japanese father ... you're in trouble.
But I completely agree, kids laugh at everyone, they always find something.
Yes! As long as both parents are loving, it doesn't have to be a man and a woman. Kids being raised by homosexual parents should be taught how to deal with all the ignorant people in the world who see it as something wrong or unusual. We're all humans, sexual preferences are completely beside the point.
How dark a woe! yet how sublime a hope!
How silently serene a sea of pride!
How daring an ambition! yet how deep--
How fathomless a capacity for love!
and the same could be said for heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. some go the route of surrogates, etc. while i understand where you are coming from, if society has already deemed these things "OK" for hetero couples, i fail to see how it could be right to deny these same rights simply b/c someone is homosexual. you can say hetero couples are very 'selfish' then for going to great lengths to have their own child. selfish or not, we as a society have deemed it ok for them to be selfish. however, just b/c one can easil get pregnant and give bitrth...and another cannot...why is one more 'selfish' than the other? aren't they both equally 'selfish' then for wanting to reproduce in the first place...to rather have their own offspring rather than adopt? i think the bottomline is...why the double-standard? and why should you or i get to decide what is 'right' for a couple in regarsds to their wants/desires for a family? why is it on for heteros and not homosexcuals..who draws the line, where and why?
exactly.
I personally hope that more people would adopt rather than go through numerous treatments in order to try and get something that they design. There are so many kids out there that can use homes! HOWEVER, I certainly don't feel it's my place to dictate others' reproductive outcomes. It's their choice. And if hetero couples get these choices (yes, the more higher-income couples), than other couples should too. It's weird how many people want to tell others how to live.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
It's funny to me (not "ha ha" funny, either), to see people of a certain ideology endlessly claiming to be champions of "Family Values" while they also fight to prevent gay couples from being able to adopt. I'm somewhat familiar with adoption and child welfare/social services. There are so many children in this country and others who desperately need stability in their home lives. Some of these kids spend their entire childhoods being bounced from foster home to group home to foster home. These kids need families, ideally two parents, and adoptive parents for these kids are in short supply.
It's very frustrating to listen to people who want to deny gay couples the right to adopt when there is such a huge need for ANYONE to be parents to these kids.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
don't know if i could make blunt, abrasive, "devil's advocate" kinda statements like righton dude can.....on such a topic that does involve human emotion to the core......kinda gutsy, even if i don't agree with the approach of making a factual point.
It's very frustrating to listen to people who want to deny gay couples the right to adopt when there is such a huge need for ANYONE to be parents to these kids.
adopt?? NO.... no objections to that.
my objection is to them deciding to "have" a kid, either through a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
instead of trying to give birth to a kid who will definitely face a lot pf peer pressure in life, they should try to bail out a kid who is unfortunate enogh to have been orphaned/abandoned.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
my objection is to them deciding to "have" a kid, either through a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
instead of trying to give birth to a kid who will definitely face a lot pf peer pressure in life, they should try to bail out a kid who is unfortunate enogh to have been orphaned/abandoned.
I take your point, but it's such a great cop-out to prevent something from happening because society has a strong intolerant element towards something that does not concern them one bit. The way to end such intolerance is to turn the issue from a peripheral one to the mainstream.
It's funny to me (not "ha ha" funny, either), to see people of a certain ideology endlessly claiming to be champions of "Family Values" while they also fight to prevent gay couples from being able to adopt. I'm somewhat familiar with adoption and child welfare/social services. There are so many children in this country and others who desperately need stability in their home lives. Some of these kids spend their entire childhoods being bounced from foster home to group home to foster home. These kids need families, ideally two parents, and adoptive parents for these kids are in short supply.
It's very frustrating to listen to people who want to deny gay couples the right to adopt when there is such a huge need for ANYONE to be parents to these kids.
Heres the question I have in regards to this. Its very sad, as you say, how hard it is for some of the children you describe to find stable, loving, adoptive parents. Its heartbreaking, actually. These aren't the kids people are fighting to adopt. My question is, is it different for homosexual adoptive couples? Are they lining up to adopt the types of children you speak of? I, honestly do not know, but, my gut feeling is, homosexual couples are no different in this scenario. These aren't the kids they're looking for either.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
im still waiting for some sort of clarification about what this "kill list" youve mentioned a couple of times is.
It's a list of people I have yet to track down in person and kill...I'm a serial killer in my spare time for kicks...keeps things lively on those rainy days...
It's a list of people I have yet to track down in person and kill...I'm a serial killer in my spare time for kicks...keeps things lively on those rainy days...
there are a lot of homophobic people on this thread i see. not really surprising.
i don't have a problem with the sex of parents. just as i don't have a problem with who someone chooses to have sex with. if more people accepted that families are not just made up of man + woman + children, the better off we'll all be. there's far too much judgement going on. we want happy healthy children. not children who grow up and decide that johnny down the street isn't a 'real' person cause he's in love with another man. children learn their behaviours from grown ups, so why not be grown up and show them that they should be accepting of everyone.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Fundamentalist gays cannot carry forward genetic imprints of themselves, and that would lead to a falling away of the entire phenomena over time. As I said in an earlier post: you can't hand homosexuality a crutch (baby) and pretend it can walk like the rest of us. My views are purely from an evolutionary standpoint, and based on the simple fact that if a species were to change in any way so that they do not have sexual procreation, they would become extinct over time. Who can argue this?
this is only true if only gay people have gay offspring. this is not the case. there is no rhyme or reason. gay people have straight children and straight people have gay children. thus homosexuality is in no way some sort of species-ending condition.
while i agree it is disappointing for gay people to go the fertility/surrogate parent route, it is equally disappointing to me that straight people do it. i think if you're going to forbid gay people from doing it, then you must ban it altogether. i dont see that happening. i think, if anything, we need to encourage adoption as a more viable alternative before we focus on banning the rest. it's kinda fucked up when adopting requires pretty much the same (if not more) amount of work and money to achieve as a ferlility treatment.
Comments
fine,,.. but lets have on answer in a simple yes or no everyone....
SHOULD A CHILD HAVE/DOES A CHILD DESERVE TO HAVE, TWO SAME-SEX ADULTS FOR HIS/HER PARENTS ???
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
and an equally valid arguement is that since a homosexual couple cant "father" a child of their own (at most one of them can be the child's parent)....they may as well raise a child already born but orphaned/abandoned, rather than risking a lot of trauma for another yet-unborn child.
i mean that though unfortunate things like a child being orphaned or abandoned does happen, to deliberately engineer trauma for a child seems very harsh to the child and very selfish of the hosexual couple.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
it's not a simple yes/no question. 'should'....'deserve'....seems the wrong language. i say, a child should/deserves to have a loving/supportive home environment...and that can come in many guises. a traditional nuclear family, a same sex couple, a single parent household, grandparents, aunts/uncles....etc. it is not a yes/no thing. unless you want to say "should homosexuals be allowed the right to adopt and or undergo assistive reproduction technology to raise a child." i would say yes. if all other criteria that heterosexual couples must meet to be apporoved for such are met, the same rules should apply, and no couple should be denied parental rights based on sexual orientation alone.
and the same could be said for heterosexual couples who cannot procreate. some go the route of surrogates, etc. while i understand where you are coming from, if society has already deemed these things "OK" for hetero couples, i fail to see how it could be right to deny these same rights simply b/c someone is homosexual. you can say hetero couples are very 'selfish' then for going to great lengths to have their own child. selfish or not, we as a society have deemed it ok for them to be selfish. however, just b/c one can easil get pregnant and give bitrth...and another cannot...why is one more 'selfish' than the other? aren't they both equally 'selfish' then for wanting to reproduce in the first place...to rather have their own offspring rather than adopt? i think the bottomline is...why the double-standard? and why should you or i get to decide what is 'right' for a couple in regarsds to their wants/desires for a family? why is it on for heteros and not homosexcuals..who draws the line, where and why?
meatwagon - absolutely true...and that has always been the case. i don't really have a problem there. many things in this world are based on the ability to 'afford' it.....now while i think basic healthcare shouldn't be one of em...other things, i don't take issue. even adoption is a very pricey route...thus only who can truly 'afford' it will do so.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
When did I use the word worthless? If you physically can't produce offsrping then what is your argument re: evolution and natural selection again? Where is your basis for fact to the contrary Mr Evolution?
your last statement is hilarious....and hypocritical.
Yes very valid question.. In essence I say no to both. Why must we continually deviate from nature to suit ourselves and our desires? Why does man continually play god in determing the natural flow of life? I dunno, it's never proven to be wise, only problematic.
naděje umírá poslední
yes, i thought i understood you correctly. and i neither agree/disagree with your there..i think it's personal choice..and could be said for many things humanity 'messes with'.
however, if we focus on your evolutionary ideas...i still have to ask....why do you deem homosexuality a 'flaw'? i agree, in theory, with the evolutionary dead-end...same for a hetero who is infertile. however, why can't this all be part of nature's plan? why can't there be some trigger within genetics, so that say - 10% of the population is either homosexual or infertile...so that sure...the species continues with the other 90% of the species that procreates...and then these select few within the species ARE meant to be as the are....to keep population in balance, to keep our ecosystem sustainable...to have other minds/hands within the clan/pack/family...to offer a supportive role to all? why is that not the possible role of such...why must it only be seen as a flaw, and not merely another function within nature and the species? personally, think it is very possible/probable...and thus, valuable.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Some medecine yes definitely. Lots (tons) of bad medecine(s) $$$ out there. I see no harm in prolonging ones life by scientifical means available re: chemo. However one should realize that trying to produce a child while pumped full of radiation and chemicals is a very bad idea. Condom use is wise today. That's like saying I'm against masturbation or having wet dreams...
Sure there is a role to play for HS in today's society. I'm all for balance. Evolution would show anything that fails to reproduce in nature is eliminated in short order. Surrogate mothering would/could appear to allow for variations on the seemingly intended convention. This could very well explain bisexuality. Fundamentalist gays cannot carry forward genetic imprints of themselves, and that would lead to a falling away of the entire phenomena over time. As I said in an earlier post: you can't hand homosexuality a crutch (baby) and pretend it can walk like the rest of us. My views are purely from an evolutionary standpoint, and based on the simple fact that if a species were to change in any way so that they do not have sexual procreation, they would become extinct over time. Who can argue this? I mean omg!!.... Extrapolation of the condition is required, perhaps that's the problem with most people here. Thinking beyond now. Some would site god as reasons. I am taking a stance purely on the evolutionary aspects as God as an argument is no basis for argument at all.
That is not to say I don't consider a higher power as reality either.
Anyhow...wow... what can I say...it's like pulling teeth on this forum to get an intelligent, informed conversation going for some reason.
Anyhow I'm done on the issue....
hmmmm....apologies if mine, or anyone else's discussion is not 'intelligent enough'....:rolleyes:
as i have agreeed, endlessly......yes, a purely homosexual person will have their genetic traits dies off with them....where do you see any proof of it ONLY being carried within homosexuals? obviously, someone had to birth the homosexual...and obviously that person had to be hetero, or at least bisexual...i guess what i am really looking for is where exactly are you putting the 'roots' of this apparent flaw? somewhere, back in human history....homosexuality began. why is it do you believe that it was not there from the get-go? why is it seem as a glitch somewhere, as something that went 'wrong'...whereas it could easily be viewed as purposeful of nature...for the reasons i list, or who knows why else? i do not pretend to understand nature in it's entirety, i don't think anyone can...it is too vast and always evolving......but it simply seems to me that since homosexuality has existed as long as it has...who even knows when it began....and it certainly could have a function. many things can be seen as 'flaw's perhaps...and not be at all..i think it is perception.
btw - any idea of god does not figure into my thinking at all...and yes, i am not thinking of just 'now'..i am thinking of the past and how we mayv'e come to now, and also the future and what roles we all may play. unless homosexuality became the ONLY sexual orientation, huiman beings will continue to exist...unless something else destroys us un related to reproduction...so i just don't see it as a 'flaw'...and more like perhaps a check in the system of population control, built right into human genetics.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
also just on the whole homosexual traditions through history.... the ancient greeks and romans had huge orgies with men and women..... men doing men, women doing women, men doing women etc etc. in some ways back then they were far more accepting and enlightened that some people today
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
I mean, god for bid anyone who disagrees with you in any way is most obviously ignorant and unintelligent.
I guess my high IQ score and my biology/biochemistry degree doesn't mean much as far as talking about some issues such as biology or evolution.
- Antwerp '06, Nijmegen '07, Werchter '07
im still waiting for some sort of clarification about what this "kill list" youve mentioned a couple of times is.
i take your point but then kids pick on you for anything. you can have different coloured parents, you might be fat, you might be thin, you have big teeth, you wear glasses, big feet, different religion, race..... i dont think you would get picked on more if you had gay parents than if you were one of the few coloured kids in a white dominant school
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Now if you were a fat, big teeth having, glasses wearing, bigfooted muslim with one black father and another japanese father ... you're in trouble.
But I completely agree, kids laugh at everyone, they always find something.
naděje umírá poslední
NO
How silently serene a sea of pride!
How daring an ambition! yet how deep--
How fathomless a capacity for love!
exactly.
I personally hope that more people would adopt rather than go through numerous treatments in order to try and get something that they design. There are so many kids out there that can use homes! HOWEVER, I certainly don't feel it's my place to dictate others' reproductive outcomes. It's their choice. And if hetero couples get these choices (yes, the more higher-income couples), than other couples should too. It's weird how many people want to tell others how to live.
cross the river to the eastside
It's very frustrating to listen to people who want to deny gay couples the right to adopt when there is such a huge need for ANYONE to be parents to these kids.
adopt?? NO.... no objections to that.
my objection is to them deciding to "have" a kid, either through a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
instead of trying to give birth to a kid who will definitely face a lot pf peer pressure in life, they should try to bail out a kid who is unfortunate enogh to have been orphaned/abandoned.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Heres the question I have in regards to this. Its very sad, as you say, how hard it is for some of the children you describe to find stable, loving, adoptive parents. Its heartbreaking, actually. These aren't the kids people are fighting to adopt. My question is, is it different for homosexual adoptive couples? Are they lining up to adopt the types of children you speak of? I, honestly do not know, but, my gut feeling is, homosexual couples are no different in this scenario. These aren't the kids they're looking for either.
It's a list of people I have yet to track down in person and kill...I'm a serial killer in my spare time for kicks...keeps things lively on those rainy days...
How Mature and poetic.
i don't have a problem with the sex of parents. just as i don't have a problem with who someone chooses to have sex with. if more people accepted that families are not just made up of man + woman + children, the better off we'll all be. there's far too much judgement going on. we want happy healthy children. not children who grow up and decide that johnny down the street isn't a 'real' person cause he's in love with another man. children learn their behaviours from grown ups, so why not be grown up and show them that they should be accepting of everyone.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
this is only true if only gay people have gay offspring. this is not the case. there is no rhyme or reason. gay people have straight children and straight people have gay children. thus homosexuality is in no way some sort of species-ending condition.
while i agree it is disappointing for gay people to go the fertility/surrogate parent route, it is equally disappointing to me that straight people do it. i think if you're going to forbid gay people from doing it, then you must ban it altogether. i dont see that happening. i think, if anything, we need to encourage adoption as a more viable alternative before we focus on banning the rest. it's kinda fucked up when adopting requires pretty much the same (if not more) amount of work and money to achieve as a ferlility treatment.
Yes.