Is homosexuality a disease?

24567…24

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    NCfan wrote:
    It seems many of you are ignoring the point that I make. Without technology, two women cannot get pregnant. Human endeavor has given us the medical and technological ability to impregnate a couple that would otherwise never be able to concieve.

    My argument is that it is not nature's design for two lesbians to raise a child.

    if you look at all of nature - you will see there are many examples of children being raised by multiple women (lesbian or not) or even just a mom ... so, why wouldn't two moms be just as good if not better ... or even cultural instances in history where it was often the women's role to raise the children while men hunt ...
  • Horos
    Horos Posts: 4,518
    You'll all hate me but..........

    IMO there are too many people, there are too many children, there are too many people nuturing mutated people, there are far too many 'singles' and 'couples' who are unfit to raise children(nearly all, it's a learning experiment), abort the abnormal, and get rid off those who are different(myself included), and religion, well just crucify them all!
    #FHP
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    NCfan wrote:
    okay, tell me then Einstein how two women can fuck and knock each other up? Give me a break....

    that's not the point i'm making. i'm saying that a lesbian is capable of getting pregnant. an infertile woman is not. infertile/impotent couples have to use technology to have a kid or they have to buy one. how is that okay and a lesbian couple doing the same thing (with additional options even) not okay?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    NCfan wrote:
    It seems many of you are ignoring the point that I make. Without technology, two women cannot get pregnant. Human endeavor has given us the medical and technological ability to impregnate a couple that would otherwise never be able to concieve.

    My argument is that it is not nature's design for two lesbians to raise a child.

    and without technology, infertile couples cannot get pregnant either. YOU are ignoring this point. you said it yourself: human endeavor has given us the medical and technological ability to impregnate a couple that would otherwise never be able to conceive... whether it be becos of homosexuality or infertility.

    nature's design had nothing to do with couples raising children. it had to do with sperm and egg being necessary. at the dawn of civilization, it was not parents who raised the children, it was the tribe. all the adults raised all the children collectively. monogamy and partnering is a human social institution, not a natural one.

    an infertile couple COULD conceive if they weren't infertile. or they can use technology.

    by the same logic, a homosexual couple COULD conceive if they weren't homosexual. or they can use technology.

    there is no difference. a loving family is far more important to raising a child than the gender of those in the family.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Correct. This is as true today as it was 100,000 years ago. Two women sitting alone on this planet with all the technology in the world cannot conceive a child. They still need a dude, or at least that dude's sperm.



    Nature's design, particularly for us, is to use technology. It's pretty much all we have. So I think you'd be best in just trusting in what nature gave us, rather than trying to pick and choose at the offering plate.

    Amen.... now there is a comment I can respect. I might not agree necessarily on the grounds that just because something is capable of happening does not mean that it should. Technology will give us the ability to clone ourselves, but I don't necesarily think that we should. But thanks for acknoweging where I'm coming from!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    NCfan wrote:
    okay, tell me then Einstein how two women can fuck and knock each other up? Give me a break....

    tell me how an impotent man can fuck and knock his wife up?
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    soulsinging wrote:
    tell me how an impotent man can fuck and knock his wife up?

    What in the fuck.... Dude, I'm not talking about an individual couple here or there that are impotent. I'm saying that overall, two women are incapable of reproducing on their own. Sure, there are infertile hetero couples all over the place. But normal hetero couples are capable of reproducing. Normal homo couples are not...... understand???????????
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Personally, I find it morally reprehensible for a child to be raised by anyone - couple or not - that has sexual proclivities that extend beyond the standard missionary position. It's called the missionary position for a reason - it's what God wants!

    Arguably, the.... act (oh, I feel dirty just saying "act")..... should be performed with a sheet over the woman; but, I'm no prude, so I'll keep that one in the "Optional" file.
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    NCfan wrote:
    What in the fuck.... Dude, I'm not talking about an individual couple here or there that are impotent. I'm saying that overall, two women are incapable of reproducing on their own. Sure, there are infertile hetero couples all over the place. But normal hetero couples are capable of reproducing. Normal homo couples are not...... understand???????????

    What, do you not have any infertile/impotent couples as friends?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    NCfan wrote:
    Amen.... now there is a comment I can respect. I might not agree necessarily on the grounds that just because something is capable of happening does not mean that it should.

    Neither would I. But to dismiss it somehow as "not part of nature's plan" makes absolutely no sense, given the fact that we would never have been able to accomplish it in the first place without "nature's plan". Furthermore, you're also probably making a rather foolish assumption that nature has a plan to begin with.
    Technology will give us the ability to clone ourselves, but I don't necesarily think that we should. But thanks for acknoweging where I'm coming from!

    I don't think we should do that either, but it certainly wouldn't be a violation of nature.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    So NCfan are you saying 2 men or 2 women are incapable of raising a child and giving it the same amount of love and guidance that a man and a woman can?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    how do you define disease? i wish i had a dollar for every time i heard "i'm going back to men". this tells me you're not born with it. especially when i hear "i'm switching to women" by women. and women letting their dogs lick them goes far back in history.
    my opinion is do what you want; just don't involve me.
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    VictoryGin wrote:
    What, do you not have any infertile/impotent couples as friends?

    Fuck you man. I have a valid point. You don't need to take shots at me becuase you disagree. I don't even have my mind made up about how I feel about gays raising children. That is why I started this thread, to see what others thought and how they rationalized their decision.

    I'm stuck on the fact that by nature's design, a homo couple cannot get pregnant own their own. In contrast a hetero couple can. This has meaning to me.

    You should respect my feelings becuase I'm not coming on here gay bashing and trashing other peole and their lifestyles.

    People like you and comments like this are what is wrong with the MT. You can't even bring a well thought out thread to the forum without being verbally jumped by some punk like you who just wants to take cheap shots....
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    onelongsong wrote:
    and women letting their dogs lick them goes far back in history.


    :eek:
  • NCfan
    NCfan Posts: 945
    cutback wrote:
    So NCfan are you saying 2 men or 2 women are incapable of raising a child and giving it the same amount of love and guidance that a man and a woman can?

    Nope, not at all.....I think a homo couple is capable of giving a child just as much love and affection as a hetero couple...
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    NCfan wrote:
    What in the fuck.... Dude, I'm not talking about an individual couple here or there that are impotent. I'm saying that overall, two women are incapable of reproducing on their own. Sure, there are infertile hetero couples all over the place. But normal hetero couples are capable of reproducing. Normal homo couples are not...... understand???????????

    but your entire argument is based on the fact that homo couples are simply not normal, they are an aberration from nature, just like infertile couples. from your original post, there is no such thing as a normal homo couple. thus homo couples are not normal (diseased) and neither are infertile hetero couples (also diseased). so why is it ok for the one abnormal couple to raise kids, but not the other?

    furthermore, id like to see you respond to my point about how there is no mandate from nature that male-female hetero couples raising kids is normal. it has historically been a community effort and gender does not matter at all in terms of parenting.

    lastly, you're right... homo couples cannot conceive naturally. but this has nothing to do with ability to raise a child. they are two separate issues. hetero infertile couples cannot conceive naturally either. inability to conceive children does not equal an inability to raise them.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    NCfan wrote:
    I'm stuck on the fact that by nature's design, a homo couple cannot get pregnant own their own. In contrast a hetero couple can. This has meaning to me.

    NC, why do you keep tying conception to childrearing? Nature seperates those concepts for very good reasons.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    NCfan wrote:
    Nope, not at all.....I think a homo couple is capable of giving a child just as much love and affection as a hetero couple...
    Great. Then why did you bring this up? What are you hoping to learn from this discussion? (I'm not being a smartass or trying to bait you, I'm just curious)
  • VictoryGin
    VictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    NCfan wrote:
    Fuck you man. I have a valid point. You don't need to take shots at me becuase you disagree. I don't even have my mind made up about how I feel about gays raising children. That is why I started this thread, to see what others thought and how they rationalized their decision.

    I'm stuck on the fact that by nature's design, a homo couple cannot get pregnant own their own. In contrast a hetero couple can. This has meaning to me.

    You should respect my feelings becuase I'm not coming on here gay bashing and trashing other peole and their lifestyles.

    People like you and comments like this are what is wrong with the MT. You can't even bring a well thought out thread to the forum without being verbally jumped by some punk like you who just wants to take cheap shots....

    oh, so it got your attention, man. see, i have been thinking and asking questions but you don't answer them.

    again, this "fact" that you're stuck on--by nature's design (whatever that means) a homo couple cannot get pregnant, yet a hetero couple can. so again, do you feel it is as unnatural and wrong for an infertile/impotent couple to raise a kid as you do a gay couple?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • seagoat2
    seagoat2 Posts: 241
    Love + Love = Love

    Lesbians or gay men for that matter, can & do raise healthy, non-gay children all the time. Whether or not you think it's un-natural.

    What about 2 hetero women who are sisters raising children? What about 2 hetero single Moms who are room-mates raising children? I think you're arguing the point that it being un-natural, the children will be exposed to "gay" lifestyles & that somehow this will influence their sexuality.

    If someone is BORN gay, as you yourself believe, how will that exposure make a difference?

    And no, homosexuality is not a disease & there are many instances of homosexuality in nature....

Categories