gay people raising children

rightondude wrote:

Oh please...spaz... get a grip on yourself. I am stating the facts of evolution. Thanks for your wonderfully candid, and apparently useless "opinions" they are very telling of your character.

State some facts to the opposite...otherwise you're just drooling on the floor...sigh...what a brainless response

you're a sad, warped individual.

rightondude wrote:

You would less informed than you should be to assume that. Physically they are akin to identical twins in appearance from different mothers. Think about that concept for a second or two...or three, or however long you need

if animals are genetically 'perfect'....why has there been documented cases of homosexual acts within some species? and no, i can offer no documented proof...b/c sure, i've read it in a few places, but yea...can't recall where...and i am just too damn lazy to look it up..so believe, or not, at will. how can that be if it is a 'flaw'...? and if physical looks are all that deem 'perfection'....well then, i just don't see it.

however, i still really fail to see the true connection to the thread topic? i thought it was all about homosexuals rasing children? even if you believe homosexuality to be a 'flaw'....do you think then they are just too 'flawed' to raise children or not? where does one draw the line? there are many 'flawed' people out in the world, with serious issues not visible to the naked eye. plenty of heterosexual couples who, physically, can reproduce, but perhaps for other reasons should not. what exactly about homosexuality makes one think, the possibility, that they should not raise children? it seems to me, the initial thread-starter didn't even touch upon reproduction, merely raising.

decides2dream wrote:

if animals are genetically 'perfect'....why has there been documented cases of homosexual acts within some species? and no, i can offer no documented proof...b/c sure, i've read it in a few places, but yea...can't recall where...and i am just too damn lazy to look it up..so believe, or not, at will. how can that be if it is a 'flaw'...? and if physical looks are all that deem 'perfection'....well then, i just don't see it.

however, i still really fail to see the true connection to the thread topic? i thought it was all about homosexuals rasing children? even if you believe homosexuality to be a 'flaw'....do you think then they are just too 'flawed' to raise children or not? where does one draw the line? there are many 'flawed' people out in the world, with serious issues not visible to the naked eye. plenty of heterosexual couples who, physically, can reproduce, but perhaps for other reasons should not. what exactly about homosexuality makes one think, the possibility, that they should not raise children? it seems to me, the initial thread-starter didn't even touch upon reproduction, merely raising.

I can't read for you friend ...sorry it's all there already...

As for the in nature thing, most of it is for social dominance, and hierachy purposes, or as bonobos use it to defuse threating situations. They are mostly bisexual however, not strictly homosexual. Otherwise they would be selected out (as long as evironmental pollution could be ruled out as well mind you...another issue). I am just saying that not being mentally willing, or capable to breed is a huge indication of a seriously major problem....Why people continually seem to disagree with this simple fact is beyond anything I can comprehend as being intelligent. It does not surprise me though.

IndianSummer wrote:

ignore the "let"...


what was was trying to say is that raising kids as long as they were parentless orphan kids seemed like a compromise between homosexuals going without kids and them "fathering" a kid, just because they want to exercise their right to parenthood (nevermind the trauma to the child)

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.

IndianSummer wrote:

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.

IndianSummer wrote:

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.

decides2dream wrote:

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.

rightondude wrote:

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.

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Anyhow I'm done on the issue....