gay people raising children

rightondude · June 2006

CenterCity wrote:

what do you mean? do you mean that good traits way to diluted with bad ones?

Yes. Human emotions fueled by scientific improvments are weakening the genetic code more as time goes on. Hardly any baby dies anymore no matter how sick it is. 100+ years ago that child would have died and for a good reason.

rightondude · June 2006

CenterCity wrote:

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.

If you know more than me, tell me about it...I'd like to learn more. Pointing a finger at me saying wrong is of no value whatsoever other than to appeal to ones primitive and instinctive emotions, a sign of misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge. An truly intelligent informed mind does not subject itself easily to that thought process. Knowledge is confronted with more knowledge not mere labelling. That would be otherwise known as analytical regression.

rightondude · June 2006

CenterCity wrote:

kinda of like getting as close to sex as possible, without having sex. huh.

You seem to shadow me with wierd conjecture. please stop. It's becoming annoying and childish. Contribute something to the issue. Any idiot can point fault at anything...what's the point of being here if not to learn something...that's what msn messenger is for...gabbing away about nothing constructive in particular.

Riot_Rain · June 2006

A couple of thought from someone who is actually GAY and would actually like to raise a CHILD:

*audience gasps*

1. Few people seem to realise how painful it is to have the rest of the world trying to decide whether you can have a child or not. I see plenty of dysfunctional families around me and noone tells them they shouldn't have had kids or can't have any more kids. I see kids that are abused, parents that fight, kids that are malnourished, kids that are fat, parents that eat themselves to death, parents that are addicted. I don't see a discussion about their parenting rights. But because me and my girlfriend are both girls (*gasp*) people can discuss our family life for us. That hurts.

2. I think me and my girlfriend will be great parents. We do realise it might/will be hard on the kids. But we are aware of that and will help them through it. Other kids get bullied because they're fat, or because one of their parents has left, or is in jail or has a disability. Kids bully, sometimes they don't even need a reason. Don't forget we will LOVE the kids and they will love us.

I'm not going into the whole genes, flaw, illness, choice thing. All I can say is I have fallen in love and have been in a healthy, loving relationship for 3+ years now.

Whaddayasay, shall I ask her to marry me?

*audience gasps and faints*

rightondude · June 2006

Riot_Rain wrote:

A couple of thought from someone who is actually GAY and would actually like to raise a CHILD:

*audience gasps*

1. Few people seem to realise how painful it is to have the rest of the world trying to decide whether you can have a child or not. I see plenty of dysfunctional families around me and noone tells them they shouldn't have had kids or can't have any more kids. I see kids that are abused, parents that fight, kids that are malnourished, kids that are fat, parents that eat themselves to death, parents that are addicted. I don't see a discussion about their parenting rights. But because me and my girlfriend are both girls (*gasp*) people can discuss our family life for us. That hurts.

2. I think me and my girlfriend will be great parents. We do realise it might/will be hard on the kids. But we are aware of that and will help them through it. Other kids get bullied because they're fat, or because one of their parents has left, or is in jail or has a disability. Kids bully, sometimes they don't even need a reason. Don't forget we will LOVE the kids and they will love us.

I'm not going into the whole genes, flaw, illness, choice thing. All I can say is I have fallen in love and have been in a healthy, loving relationship for 3+ years now.

Whaddayasay, shall I ask her to marry me?

*audience gasps and faints*

If you think she's the one...I say go fot it! I don't people because of who they are. What a silly notion. I love open minded people. The mind is a beautiful thing. Science is very cynical, cold hearted, and not for everyone. Any how not going there if you don't wish to. That would make me an ass...(ok here comes the peanut gallery again)

anyhow..Live and love...we're all here for a very, very short time. I think you could make a very loving mom if you are happy in life. Love is love is love. Share it with someone who needs it!

CenterCity · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

You seem to shadow me with wierd conjecture. please stop. It's becoming annoying and childish. Contribute something to the issue. Any idiot can point fault at anything...what's the point of being here if not to learn something...that's what msn messenger is for...gabbing away about nothing constructive in particular.

you know what: f-you.
you have a lot of nerve telling me i'm the immature one, when in fact you're absolutely wrong about how science is derived from emotion or that this topic can be discussed with setting emotion aside.

aside from just being bold, you don't make your point effectively and even more importantly, you lack contribution to any sort of better understanding of homosexuality in man kind in this thread.

and on top of that, you may have tons of experience, but you absolutely cannot articulate your point in the realm of fundamental conservation.

i hope you feel better, trying to be so emotionless. you're defiantely not a musician.

rightondude · June 2006

CenterCity wrote:

you know what: f-you.
you have a lot of nerve telling me i'm the immature one, when in fact you're absolutely wrong about how science is derived from emotion or that this topic can be discussed with setting emotion aside.

aside from just being bold, you don't make your point effectively and even more importantly, you lack contribution to any sort of better understanding of homosexuality in man kind in this thread.

and on top of that, you may have tons of experience, but you absolutely cannot articulate your point in the realm of fundamental conservation.

i hope you feel better, trying to be so emotionless. you're defiantely not a musician.

Hmmm...speechless at the audacity...calm down I don't hate you...sigh... so we disagree... big deal...

bump

CenterCity · June 2006

you telling me to calm down.....upsets me even more.
"I'd rather be with an animal" thank you very much.

CenterCity · June 2006

no.....you know what, i don't hate you either. please you're lines reak---like a musician that can't come up with good lyrics. and i hope that is an insult.

rightondude · June 2006

CenterCity wrote:

no.....you know what, i don't hate you either. please you're lines reak---like a musician that can't come up with good lyrics. and i hope that is an insult.

talk to me again when you can be cool ok? you don't smell any better right now...so what really? Stop attacking my character already, it sucks, it's childish, and it doesn't belong here...pm me if you need to rant further, as will I, but don't expect anything more from me on this train of thought...

soulsinging · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Well I commend you for actually being able to discuss the issue instead of attacking me like most would reduce themselves to. Small minds come up with small answers I guess. It is my belief than man has been peeing in the proverbial gene pool for a long time now. More specifically in the the last 100 years by coddling undesirable traits that shouldn't be. It's really cruel to think this way but nature is pretty cruel in general. Watch any nature show. When a hyena swoops in to take a young newborn baby zebra by the neck that aint so great to watch, but that is reality. I believe there is a cause and effect for everything. I can't see how homosexuality is healthy, especially in males. How is fecal matter + reproductive system a good thing. It's an abomination. It's disgusting. Certainly something is very wrong there. It wouldn't take much to know that playing around with fecal waste is about as backwards to the human process as you can get. The male life bearing "device" is literally inserted into human waste. 180 deg out of balance. I believe bisexuality was the invention of homosexuality. The one twisted thought in someone that allowed that mindset to pass on genetic code. The gene pool is degrading, I can't see how furthering this idea, and embracing it, is anywhere close to being a good idea. However they're here and they're queer. So am I homophobic? no. I've actually gone to a few after hours gay bars and talked to lots of gay men. They would love to take me home. Every gay man I've met has told me this essentially. So no I don't hate gays. The sex part makes me want to dry heave endlessly though.

it's not a stretch to go the other way. this may shock you, but women urinate out of their vaginas and that stuff coming out of your peepee is also waste matter. yet you have no qualms putting those two together. i assume that you are equally opposed to tagging your wife or girlfriend "in a very uncomfortable place" (thank you kevin smith!)?

also, i must congratulate you on being irresistable to gay men. ive known many gay men. ive never once had them tell me they couldnt wait to take me home. i respected their lifestyle and made no effort to change it and they did the same.

i also dont get the eliminating bad genes thing. i take it you're referring to things like diabetes and mental retardation? we should let these people fend for themselves and if they can't cut it tough shit? sterilize the mentally ill? it sounds like you're talking about eugenics and that's a pretty frightening slippery slope.

rightondude · June 2006

soulsinging wrote:

it's not a stretch to go the other way. this may shock you, but women urinate out of their vaginas and that stuff coming out of your peepee is also waste matter. yet you have no qualms putting those two together. i assume that you are equally opposed to tagging your wife or girlfriend "in a very uncomfortable place" (thank you kevin smith!)?

also, i must congratulate you on being irresistable to gay men. ive known many gay men. ive never once had them tell me they couldnt wait to take me home. i respected their lifestyle and made no effort to change it and they did the same.

i also dont get the eliminating bad genes thing. i take it you're referring to things like diabetes and mental retardation? we should let these people fend for themselves and if they can't cut it tough shit? sterilize the mentally ill? it sounds like you're talking about eugenics and that's a pretty frightening slippery slope.

Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.

I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.

If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.

My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...

In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.

I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.

CenterCity · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.

I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception.. alas we can't because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.

If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.

My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...

In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.

I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.

righton....dude....thanks for clarifying your approach....i really admire you for trailblazing, no attack on your oh so intelligent approach.....i just sent you a one-line rant PM.
but you're like a self-professed victim here, and by the way, haven't you heard of other animals taking care of/or adopting other baby animals.

soulsinging · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.

I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.

If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.

My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...

In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.

I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.

i see your argument, i just dont think it's as ironclad as you do. as decides2dream pointed out, could homosexuality not just be part of nature's plan? furthermore, as i mentioned before but i think it got missed... gay people do not have only gay children and straight people do not have only straight children. thus, there's no one "gay gene" to be passing out that is gonig to either die out or wipe us out. it's a random occurrence like many other things, from eye color to albinoism to dwarfism. i see what you're saying about species procreation, but i dont think homosexuality is going to make any sort of dent on it. i think our gene pool is in far more danger from the chemicals and radiation and hormones we add to our food on a daily basis than it is from homosexuals.

though im curious what you mean by "at the source before conception." i can relate it to not allowing gays to use fertility treatments and whatnot. but to me, that still entails banning the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, midgets, etc from reproducing. maybe you're not advocating sterilization, but you're still talking about denying all these people reproductive rights on genetic grounds. i dont think there's anything WE can do with fertility treatments to beat mother nature.

and for the record, if that means you're not down with giving it to your gf "in through the out door" then you're missing out

Riot_Rain · June 2006

Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.

Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?

On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?

As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?

Peace out

rightondude wrote:

Urine is sterile...you can drink it to survive...eat your feces...well we've head all about e-coli ilnesses and deaths.

I'm stating scientific fact devoid of emotion, and reflecting this to observable phonema in nature. Sterilize people..no no... hit it at the source before conception. We can't succeed after the fact because we have emotions...who could watch a baby suffer and die? Animals do it all the time. It does not mean my argument is not correct with regards to altering our genetic path and the reasons thereof.

If people can't see this argument for what it is then oh well. That's fine but to say im wrong would be very misinformed.

My point is to prove a concept that very few actually realize, yet many criticize. But it still does not come close to proving me wrong. I have yet to see evidence of it in this thread...

In reality today? slipery slope sure...who's going to start euthanizing children? dear lord!? not I... I'm actually against abortion even.

I hope you can see what I mean in my viewpoint. Identifying a problem leads further towards it's solution. It's funny to see people lash out though, as I have stated that I support gay adoption, and acceptance of gays, and I have several gay friends...all in this same thread...and all of which is true.

rightondude · June 2006

soulsinging wrote:

i see your argument, i just dont think it's as ironclad as you do. as decides2dream pointed out, could homosexuality not just be part of nature's plan? furthermore, as i mentioned before but i think it got missed... gay people do not have only gay children and straight people do not have only straight children. thus, there's no one "gay gene" to be passing out that is gonig to either die out or wipe us out. it's a random occurrence like many other things, from eye color to albinoism to dwarfism. i see what you're saying about species procreation, but i dont think homosexuality is going to make any sort of dent on it. i think our gene pool is in far more danger from the chemicals and radiation and hormones we add to our food on a daily basis than it is from homosexuals.

though im curious what you mean by "at the source before conception." i can relate it to not allowing gays to use fertility treatments and whatnot. but to me, that still entails banning the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, midgets, etc from reproducing. maybe you're not advocating sterilization, but you're still talking about denying all these people reproductive rights on genetic grounds. i dont think there's anything WE can do with fertility treatments to beat mother nature.

and for the record, if that means you're not down with giving it to your gf "in through the out door" then you're missing out

I see homosexuality as a probable progression of bisexuality, and mens ever present untamed libido in leading them into deviation of a bisexual nature as introducing the "mindset" (for lack of specific genetic proof at this point in time) into the mix. Once the human mind has been completely unravelled I think we will know much more, or all that is reality. Will homosexuality wipe us out....very unlikely. At present nature has brought the equation, and probably always will back into balance, perhaps a new balance. Homosexuality goes extremely far back before any written word, or any expression of verbal communication for that matter imo. To willingly expand the notion of introducing further genetic integration of homosexual deviation on a wider scale could very well be asking for unknown consequences. What that will be? Who knows. But not to not recognize this would be unwise though.

Hitting it at the source is a very good question, of which I wish I had a viable answer for. A catch 22 with the human condition, simply by the fact that our emotions, and abilities are highly developed when compared to the animal realm. I still stand by my comprehension of the situation though, but I cannot provide answers to this highly emotional scenario. I wish I had all the answers. What can we do at this point? Good question, other than to identify it and recognise it. Hopefully science can provide further clarification with additional research on the human genome. Perhaps science can "map us out" before preparing to concieve, and provide us an answer to eliminate ilnesses, diseases, disabilities, and other bodily suseptibilities, etc......many issues there as well, even towards my own argument, on what is natural anymore. In any event, this is where we all are. We cannot remove ourselves *from* ourselves and how we react with regards to compassion. All we can do is just try to understand the concept and hope for the best for all in the future.

Riot_Rain · June 2006

rightondude wrote:

To willingly expand the notion of introducing further genetic integration of homosexual deviation on a wider scale could very well be asking for unknown consequences. What that will be? Who knows. But not to not recognize this would be unwise though.

Let me just repeat that one more time: "genetic integration of homosexual deviation". Wow.

Seriously though, we are now entering the realm of speculation. And need it be said again: there is no gay gene.

rightondude wrote:

Hopefully science can provide further clarification with additional research on the human genome. Perhaps science can "map us out" before preparing to concieve, and provide us an answer to eliminate ilnesses, diseases, disabilities, and other bodily suseptibilities, etc......many issues there as well, even towards my own argument, on what is natural anymore.

Are you the same person who said we have to follow nature's chosen path? The very same who is against abortion? Mapping people out "before preparing to conceive" to "Provide us an answer to eliminate illnesses, diseases, disabilities". Sounds scary to me.

CenterCity · June 2006

Riot_Rain wrote:

Let me just repeat that one more time: "genetic integration of homosexual deviation". Wow.

Seriously though, we are now entering the realm of speculation. And need it be said again: there is no gay gene.

Are you the same person who said we have to follow nature's chosen path? The very same who is against abortion? Mapping people out "before preparing to conceive" to "Provide us an answer to eliminate illnesses, diseases, disabilities". Sounds scary to me.

that pharse makes better sense as "Deviation by Genetic Integration of Homosexulity" or "Genetic Integration of Homosexuality is a Deviation from....."

there is a genetic basis to everything.....everything in science is showing to come down to this level.

Collin · June 2006

Riot_Rain wrote:

Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.

Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?

On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?

As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?

Peace out

Very good post!

And rightondude. may I ask you what your qualifications are? Are you in the field of genetic research? What do you know about genetics, anyway? I'm very interested in this, I might have missed it but I haven't seen your credentials on the subject, neither have I seen any source that backs up your statement. I'm not saying your statement is wrong... but I'd really like to know.

rightondude · June 2006

Riot_Rain wrote:

Right, the gay is back for more (see page 14). Just couldn't resist.

Me and my g/f are NOT going to adopt, we are going to have children that are hers and a donor's. Rightondude thinks that in doing this we are not following the path of nature. As far as the donor's surplus of sperm and my g/f's eggs are concerned, there's nothing out of the ordinary there. It's nature for men to ejaculate and for women to get pregnant. And no, the donor is not going to deliver his goods Adam&Eve's way, so yeah go ahead and argue this is most unnatural. Do you drink your milk straight from the cow by the way?

On our undesiarable trait. We cannot reproduce, this is true. But as other people have already said: our kids will not be gay just because we are. They might have asthma though, as my lovely g/f has it. Next time she has an attack and can't reach her inhaler, should I let nature follow its chosen path and let her die?

As to separating emotion from science.... You are against abortion. So if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant against her will, you would like to follow the chosen part of nature again? Or do you think that might be a bit unfair?

Peace out

Science has created, or allowed for, many of the genetic problems I'm talking about. I would believe stark evidence of mans intervention in nature. Not drinking milk from the cow or even owning a cow but still drinking milk is a cake and eat it to scenario.

5000+ years ago if I didn't own a tamed cow, I probably couldn't drink it's milk. You might also have a hard time getting a guy to let go into a cup. Most primitive men might not be so nice, or willing in the process to even consider this, and would have their way with you as often as they desire. Men are untamed animals in this regard, to imagine no laws or consequence to man's actions could be a very scary reality for many a gay woman. You would probably have to live in isolation and come out of hiding just to "breed" or risk being "raped" in this case repeatedly in a primitive society or village. Being outcast in a village usually meant death around 4000+ years ago. Would the baby, or you, survive the hardships of being pregnant in an untamed world without mans protection and support i.e. food shelter safety from animals? Much has changed in society the past 5,000 years alone. Homosexuality has really only been able to really proliferate socially in the just past 30-50 years. It's been a big secret until now. So I could argue that it is increasing substantially.

I believe the first bisexual thinking person was a man that carried forward this tendency and gave offspring to like minded women over time. Men are hornballs. Continual carrying forward of this trait would lead it to develop into full polarity leading to homosexuality. That's total opinion though.

Back in history your partner would not have access to an inhaler so you might not have a choice on her outcome.

Anyhow what does this matter now...very little.

I am not against abortion in extreme circumstances I should have clarified this I am not a black and white thinking person. Gang rape would be an obvious consideration... just not as birth control measure.

Anyhow back to your current situation. I can't press my beliefs on you and say you're going to hell shame on you. That mentality would select me out in an evolutionary sense in today's society. We are definitely evolving and changing over time it seems very apparent to me. Thinking is good. Not thinking is bad. I love breaking steroetypes and beliefs, I always have to figure out how something works for some reason, what I do in the process is usually unconventional.

besides all that...I wish you all the best. Hapiness is the ultimate answer to everything I believe. Find it in whatever form you can that provides it. that to me is the ultimate human condition and answer thus far.

gay people raising children

Comments

Categories