PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Gay adoption/marriage
       should homosexuals be allowed to marry and adopt?

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
babybrat

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my personal opinion I think that people who love eachother should be allowed to be married...homosexuals should not be excluded from that....and i think that on adoption if the child is perfectly 100% ok with having 2 mommies or 2 dadies then the couple should be allowed to adopt them. It doesn't matter to me much because the way that i think of it is....does it derictly affect you??? NO... The ONLY people who should be invovled are the two people who are getting married or the couple and the child that might become adopted dsoes it seiriously affect anyone else? I personally do not think so, i mean hell....we have so many homosexuals who are afraid to "come out of the closet" because they are afraid of being treated differently. How is it fair to say to someone that they cannot adopt or marry because they like someone who happens to be the same sex...
I just won a speech contest going pro for same sex marriage and I challenge anyone to give me a single reason that might make me possibly change my mind.


-------
~ItS aLl bOuT mE! dEaL wItH iT!~<br>\m/(^_^)\m/<br>rock on!!!
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:50 PM on April 27, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, look up the definition of marriage in the dictionary before you use the term so loosely. Let me parapharse the important parts for you, 'The legal bond between a Man and Woman." So stop saying "gay marriage". Its a contradiction, just like hot ice. Second of all, you don't see anything wrong with two moms or two dads? Well put yourself in that childs position, think of the ridicule that will be posed upon him. A gay couple should think about the childs right as a kid to have a male role model, and a woman role model. They should consider this before they put their own desires first.

Homosexuality is not love, its lust. A result of a real couples love is a child, which is a beautiful thing. A gay couple has no result of their sex, but a fufillment of their lustful desires. Sure a man can love a man, I love my best friend, but I don't need to sleep with him to show him that love him, that would be unnatural, and beastly.

FACT: 80% of gay males admitted to not being monogomous.  

Does that sound like love to you?

As for your challenge, your thinking to much of the gay couples desires rather than the childs right to a male figure and a woman figure as parents. Think about the child who has to go through life with a gay couple as his parents, what will he think of that. Kids are constantly made fun of for new glasses and they come home crying, what will happen when the kids in school find out he has two fathers. Think about the child who is going to be put in this situation
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:12 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Lisab

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 10:12 PM on May 6, 2004 :Think about the child who has to go through life with a gay couple as his parents, what will he think of that. Kids are constantly made fun of for new glasses and they come home crying, what will happen when the kids in school find out he has two fathers. Think about the child who is going to be put in this situation

Don't you know that people said the similar things about children of interracial couples. We got past the belief that children raised in homes that are not like everyone else's homes are automatically at a disadvantage. If you actually asked most of the children of any same-sex couple, they wouldn't change their home for anything in the world. You just ASSUME they would be unhappy simply because their parents are not opposite-sex. That's a dumb assumption. DUMB. Years of research has been done, and nothing supports your belief that a child is unhappy with same-sex parents.



 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 08:27 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lisab at 08:27 AM on May 8, 2004 :
Quote from prayforsurf0 at 10:12 PM on May 6, 2004 :Think about the child who has to go through life with a gay couple as his parents, what will he think of that. Kids are constantly made fun of for new glasses and they come home crying, what will happen when the kids in school find out he has two fathers. Think about the child who is going to be put in this situation

Don't you know that people said the similar things about children of interracial couples. We got past the belief that children raised in homes that are not like everyone else's homes are automatically at a disadvantage. If you actually asked most of the children of any same-sex couple, they wouldn't change their home for anything in the world. You just ASSUME they would be unhappy simply because their parents are not opposite-sex. That's a dumb assumption. DUMB. Years of research has been done, and nothing supports your belief that a child is unhappy with same-sex parents.





That is absolutely wrong. Now you assume that they would be happy. Second of all, it is the childs right as a human being and child to have a woman figure as a mother, and a male figure as a father. How can you say that putting a child in an unnatural environment be so normal. Innterracial couples is not unnatural, again...Marriage: Legal bond between a man and woman.

That is paraphrased, but the precise definition says nothing about diffrent races, it just says man and woman. This debate is not about race of couples.  

You want to talk about research? Well then, years of research has been done and has found that gay men and women's lives are shortend by an average of 20 years. That just gives further proof that sex between homosexuals is unnatural.

Read a part of this study...

THE HEALTH RISKS
OF GAY SEX
By John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
C RC
C O R P O R AT E R E S O U R C E C O U N C I LSM

"Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study
found that 75 percent of white, gay males
claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime
male sex partners: 15 percent
claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent
claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-
999; and 28 percent claimed more than
1,000 lifetime male sex partners."


That is even further proof that homosexuality is lust, the fufillment of sexual desires, rather than love. Marriage is based on love, thats why gays can't get "married", I'd rather say united.

That is real scientific evidence, unlike your 'experiment'.
Quote from Lisab:
If you actually asked most of the children of any same-sex couple, they wouldn't change their home for anything in the world


Great experiment there buddy. And do yourself a favor and act like your in a real debate, using words like dumb just shows that you are frustrated at your lack of real evidence, and that you have no other things to argue so you resort to calling names. People like you crack me up.


 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:39 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
ffaldo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is paraphrased, but the precise definition says nothing about diffrent races, it just says man and woman


You are right it doesn't mention race.  However, it also states marriage as between two sexes.  A little research would clear this up for you.

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
 Merriam Webster

a 1978 study


This is really outdated.

How promiscuous or heterosexuals?  There are
sex clubs, cruiser bars, "special flights for sex"... and on.   Where is the research for the amount of sexual partners heterosexuals have had?  It seems to be hidden from the picture.

thats why gays can't get "married"


They can get married.  

That just gives further proof that sex between homosexuals is unnatural.


I'll agree that it is un-natural.  However it works and if people want to put themselves at risk, just like anyone else who has sex, they have every right to do so.  The only difference is that intercourse through the anus causes a higher degree of risk for disease, hence the shortened life span.

The question to you is this. Is this behavior influenced by society or is it part of their nature? From the data and comments that you have posted, you are assuming that people are naturally prone to be promiscuous.  If homosexuals are naturally prone to having more than one sexual partner, why do some only have a few?

Marriage is based on love


Have you checked the definition for love?  It is based on sexual desires.  So how is marriage not connected with sexual desires?  

1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b : an assurance of love <give her my love>
 Merriam Webster


(Edited by ffaldo 5/8/2004 at 11:04 PM).
 


Posts: 73 | Posted: 11:02 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Lisab

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 4:39 PM on May 8, 2004 :That is absolutely wrong. Now you assume that they would be happy.


I'm not wrong and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree with me. Look up some figures. Research adoption facts. Gay and lesbians are raising children in many states and studies show that children raised in such households are fine. If gays wouldn't make good parents, tell us something more specific than what you've come up with already.

Second of all, it is the childs right as a human being and child to have a woman figure as a mother, and a male figure as a father. How can you say that putting a child in an unnatural environment be so normal.  

Should single parents be forced to give up their children as well? Surely a single-parent family would have even less to offer than a homosexual one.

Innterracial couples is not unnatural, again...Marriage: Legal bond between a man and woman. That is paraphrased, but the precise definition says nothing about diffrent races, it just says man and woman. This debate is not about race of couples.  


The fact is that people denied mixed race couples the right to marry because they believed that mixing the races was unnatural and moraly wrong. Your argument sounds a lot like the arguments of those who tried to prevent interracial marriages from becoming legal 50 years ago.

You want to talk about research? Well then, years of research has been done and has found that gay men and women's lives are shortend by an average of 20 years. That just gives further proof that sex between homosexuals is unnatural.


Nature didn't intend for mammals to live in monogomous relationships, most mammals don't even attempt this. Which makes your point completely moot.
I wonder how promiscuous heterosexual males would be if there were no legal institution of marriage and women were as sexually focused as men. I'm sure that many heterosexual men had multiple sex partners when poligamy was common. The legal contracts of committment clearly are intended to promote monogamy and stability among heterosexuals. I would bet money that unmarried heterosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Yet society makes these legal committments off limits to homosexuals. Ironically, society intentionally blocks homosexuals from legal committments that tend to inhibit promiscuity, then hypocritically scream, "look at how promiscuous the gays are." They then use that as a basis for further discrimination.

That is even further proof that homosexuality is lust, the fufillment of sexual desires, rather than love. Marriage is based on love, thats why gays can't get "married", I'd rather say united.


Men and women have been marrying for convenience in the US all along - for money, for family status, for green cards. I know men who get tired of their current wives and trade them in for younger women, abandoning their families to hardship, never even seeing their children again. People get married on TV for publicity, and game show prizes. THIS IS ALL JUST FINE with current marriage law.

 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 4:35 PM on May 9, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll agree that it is un-natural.  However it works and if people want to put themselves at risk, just like anyone else who has sex, they have every right to do so.


Ok, so we agree its unnatural, I don't understand how you can't see that we were not made to show love this way. I really do love my best friend, but sex is not the way to show that to him being that were both of the same sex, its unnatural, uncomfortable, and vile. Love was meant to be enjoyed by both partners, yes you can be argumentative and say that the guy getting it in the rear-end does enjoy it, heck you can be argumentative about anything just for the sake of argument, but the point is that it is situation in which we as humans were not designed to be lived. Say for example you buy a product from Home Depot, and you use that product wrong, but you force it in ways in which it wasnt designed to be used, eventually its going to break, or not last as long as it should have. This is the same with gay sex, when you act in this way, it is using the 'product', no offense intended, in a wrong way and causing it to break sooner that it should, just like homosexuals die an avg. of 20 years early.

This is really outdated.

How promiscuous or heterosexuals?  There are
sex clubs, cruiser bars, "special flights for sex"... and on.   Where is the research for the amount of sexual partners heterosexuals have had?  It seems to be hidden from the picture.


Yes it is an old study, but the world is only getting worse, and the only reason why this study might be a little innaccurate is because the number of partners a man had is far more now than it was in 1978.

Have you checked the definition for love?  It is based on sexual desires.  So how is marriage not connected with sexual desires?


I did not say that sex has nothing to do with love, it is in fact a great deal of it. However, you are looking into the sexual part to much..."strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties ...affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests : an assurance of love"

Yes I left out the sexual parts because obviously we both already know that sex is involved with love. If you want to talk more IM me at Prayforsurf0.

If Lisab sees this before I get back from dinner don't think I avoided your post, I'm going to reply right after dinner.




 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:48 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not wrong and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree with me. Look up some figures. Research adoption facts. Gay and lesbians are raising children in many states and studies show that children raised in such households are fine. If gays wouldn't make good parents, tell us something more specific than what you've come up with already.


Do you honestly think that a child with two gay parents is going to be treated the same in school by the other kids as if he had two normal parents? I go to school, and I can tell you that kids get ragged on for every little thing, if they found out that someone had two gay parents that kid would never hear the end of it, he would suffer socially from the abuse from school, of course there will be a few nice people who will be friends with him and except him, but overall that child will suffer abuse from school. I'm not saying gay parents wouldnt be good parents, not at all, but its unfair to the child putting it in that situation without even thinking of what the child deserves, like a real family with a mother and father.

Should single parents be forced to give up their children as well? Surely a single-parent family would have even less to offer than a homosexual one.


Unfortunately kids are victims of their parents selfishness and as a result they must live with one parent at a time. Plus this child that you question whether they should be given up or not, that child was created by those parents, it is their child by blood, and unless the child is in danger by his parents then there is no argument to be debated on this topic. But this brings us into a whole new argument. Don't make points that are on a whole new topic, just because I belive homosexuality is wrong dosn't mean I think the rest of the married world is perfect. Remember that when you refer to normally married people. Your argument about a married couples doing something wrong does not justify gays being able to do the same thing.

The fact is that people denied mixed race couples the right to marry because they believed that mixing the races was unnatural and moraly wrong. Your argument sounds a lot like the arguments of those who tried to prevent interracial marriages from becoming legal 50 years ago.


The difference between my argument, and this one you present here is that my argument is based on the bible, they based theres on beliefs that they just got from some other source, which obviously was wrong and immoral. Once again your taking my argument and somehow relating it to a different argument, of a different time period, of a different subject and using it to try to prove me wrong, and justify your argument. Lets stick to the subject.

Nature didn't intend for mammals to live in monogomous relationships, most mammals don't even attempt this. Which makes your point completely moot.
I wonder how promiscuous heterosexual males would be if there were no legal institution of marriage and women were as sexually focused as men. I'm sure that many heterosexual men had multiple sex partners when poligamy was common. The legal contracts of committment clearly are intended to promote monogamy and stability among heterosexuals. I would bet money that unmarried heterosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Yet society makes these legal committments off limits to homosexuals. Ironically, society intentionally blocks homosexuals from legal committments that tend to inhibit promiscuity, then hypocritically scream, "look at how promiscuous the gays are." They then use that as a basis for further discrimination.


What does this have anything to do with gay sex being unnatural? That is not even my point, if you look at the source given you will clearly see that the results found was research done by professional scientists. It is a fact that homosexuals live shorter lives because of the unnatural lives they permit themselves to be involved in. Why would a homosexual die sooner than a heterosexual? Because he is living an unnatural life which is threatening to his life, heterosexuals don't die earlier from sex, in fact, if they are truly involved in a deep love then they are healthier. Don't argue facts such as this, it is found and proven that homosexuals die sooner than they would have if they were normal.



 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:21 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 06:21 AM on May 11, 2004 :
It is a fact that homosexuals live shorter lives because of the unnatural lives they permit themselves to be involved in. Why would a homosexual die sooner than a heterosexual? Because he is living an unnatural life which is threatening to his life, heterosexuals don't die earlier from sex, in fact, if they are truly involved in a deep love then they are healthier.


Don't you think that this creates a dangerous and incorrect assumption that heterosexuals are not exposed to the same illnesses that effect individuals in the gay population?  

Also, not knowing what it is like to be gay, I think it is difficult to qualify any statement implying that a gay couple can't feel or experience love.  It's difficult to measure in any case.

I agree that we need to consider how children will be victimised by their peers when they have gay parents.  As society becomes more educated, hopefully they will also become more tolerant.  However, perhaps the real question is, are kids robust enough to deal appropriately with abuse from their peers.  Perhaps it's just a matter of educating kids on how to deal with this type of thing.  

Kids are picked on from everything ranging from being fat, skinny, tall, short... whether having a gay parent is any worse than any of these is difficult to say, from a child's perspective.  I would be tempted to say that most young kids wouldn't even understand what being gay means, they are more likely to sense friendship and love, rather than "immoral" conduct.  I'm sure there are plenty of gay people that can give a better example of a caring relationship than many heterosexuals... and vice versa.

Dave



(Edited by valet_dave 5/10/2004 at 9:41 PM).


-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 9:14 PM on May 10, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from valet_dave at 9:14 PM on May 10, 2004 :
Quote from prayforsurf0 at 06:21 AM on May 11, 2004 :
It is a fact that homosexuals live shorter lives because of the unnatural lives they permit themselves to be involved in. Why would a homosexual die sooner than a heterosexual? Because he is living an unnatural life which is threatening to his life, heterosexuals don't die earlier from sex, in fact, if they are truly involved in a deep love then they are healthier.


Don't you think that this creates a dangerous and incorrect assumption that heterosexuals are not exposed to the same illnesses that effect individuals in the gay population?  

Also, not knowing what it is like to be gay, I think it is difficult to qualify any statement implying that a gay couple can't feel or experience love.  It's difficult to measure in any case.

I agree that we need to consider how children will be victimised by their peers when they have gay parents.  As society becomes more educated, hopefully they will also become more tolerant.  However, perhaps the real question is, are kids robust enough to deal appropriately with abuse from their peers.  Perhaps it's just a matter of educating kids on how to deal with this type of thing.  

Kids are picked on from everything ranging from being fat, skinny, tall, short... whether having a gay parent is any worse than any of these is difficult to say, from a child's perspective.  I would be tempted to say that most young kids wouldn't even understand what being gay means, they are more likely to sense friendship and love, rather than "immoral" conduct.  I'm sure there are plenty of gay people that can give a better example of a caring relationship than many heterosexuals... and vice versa.

Dave



(Edited by valet_dave 5/10/2004 at 9:41 PM).


I am not assuming that gay sex is dangerous, I read professional scientists results, proving that it is. Humans were made to have sex with the oppisite sex, sure it can be damaging to their emotional and spiritual body if they carelessly sleep around. I am in no way suggesting that gay people can't be good parents, but the child deserves his right to a normal family, and this is 2004 kids in kindergarten know what it means to be gay. And they will be picked on for having gay parents more than if they were fat. Ever hear the number one insult? "Your gay" or "Thats gay" is the most common insult, and its usually not even true, now what if a child really does have gay parents? He will have a very difficult struggle through his child and even adult life. It is not fair at all to the child to be forced into this situation.



 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:02 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 04:02 AM on May 12, 2004 :I am not assuming that gay sex is dangerous, I read professional scientists results, proving that it is.


Surely you are not implying, that by simply not being gay, you remove all risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection?    You seem reluctant to pinpoint a particular ailment?  Perhaps you are referring to HIV/AIDS, which is but one disease.  If we put HIV to one side, and consider a number of other STI’s,  I wouldn’t think there’s much doubt that heterosexuals are also exposed to plenty of nasty infections if they don’t practise safe sex, which is the key in this issue.

I won’t dispute the HIV figures on gay males.  According to recent data from the ABS, there is certainly evidence that HIV is transmitted predominately between gay men (approximately 77% of cases). Research has found the risk is increased for those participating in passive anal intercourse (not necessarily a practise confined to gay men).

It would seem there is a flaw to your theory on sexual preference on several fronts.  This is so firstly because the gay female population do not have the same rate of HIV infections as gay males, even though they just as "immoral" !  And secondly, this is so because STI’s are also rampant amongst the heterosexual community.  What you need to realise is that these conditions are based on sexual behaviour, NOT sexual preference.  Heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

I'm yet to be convinced on the child/parent issue.  We have to be careful when we say “normal family”.  Insults are certainly harmful, but I think this could be overcome.  I remember back in my childhood, it was common for immigrants to be told to go back where they came from.. the kids were distressed when they were ostracised and called various derogatory names.  Being called a “wog” was just as serious as being called gay.  It certainly wasn’t the child’s choice to be in the predicament.  At no stage do I believe we had reason to question the merits of accepting immigrants, simply because society had not yet adjusted to a "foreign" concept.  It was just a matter of tolerance.

Dave



-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 11:03 PM on May 11, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from valet_dave at 11:03 PM on May 11, 2004 :
Quote from prayforsurf0 at 04:02 AM on May 12, 2004 :I am not assuming that gay sex is dangerous, I read professional scientists results, proving that it is.


Surely you are not implying, that by simply not being gay, you remove all risk of contracting a sexually transmitted infection?    You seem reluctant to pinpoint a particular ailment?  Perhaps you are referring to HIV/AIDS, which is but one disease.  If we put HIV to one side, and consider a number of other STI’s,  I wouldn’t think there’s much doubt that heterosexuals are also exposed to plenty of nasty infections if they don’t practise safe sex, which is the key in this issue.

I won’t dispute the HIV figures on gay males.  According to recent data from the ABS, there is certainly evidence that HIV is transmitted predominately between gay men (approximately 77% of cases). Research has found the risk is increased for those participating in passive anal intercourse (not necessarily a practise confined to gay men).

It would seem there is a flaw to your theory on sexual preference on several fronts.  This is so firstly because the gay female population do not have the same rate of HIV infections as gay males, even though they just as "immoral" !  And secondly, this is so because STI’s are also rampant amongst the heterosexual community.  What you need to realise is that these conditions are based on sexual behaviour, NOT sexual preference.  Heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

I'm yet to be convinced on the child/parent issue.  We have to be careful when we say “normal family”.  Insults are certainly harmful, but I think this could be overcome.  I remember back in my childhood, it was common for immigrants to be told to go back where they came from.. the kids were distressed when they were ostracised and called various derogatory names.  Being called a “wog” was just as serious as being called gay.  It certainly wasn’t the child’s choice to be in the predicament.  At no stage do I believe we had reason to question the merits of accepting immigrants, simply because society had not yet adjusted to a "foreign" concept.  It was just a matter of tolerance.

Dave




First you assume that I'm talking about AIDs, then you make a huge post on how my "theory" about gay sex is flawed, when in reality you didn't even know what I was talking about. There are many things that have proven to shorten the life span of homosexuals, for example anal sex. Because gay males have little places to insert themselves they resort to the other guys rear end. I'm going to be completely blunt, being that I'm not dealing with a bunch of children. Someones butt was not designed to have a mans sexual organ forced up there, it is extremely dangerous and unhealthy, physically to the man reciveing , and the bacteria that can be gathered there is disgustingly dangerous for he man shoving himself up there. This is just one thing that I read in that recorded research, but after reading just this I find it amazing how people can just disregard these facts and go about doing there thing. Don't you see!!! The human body was not meant to function this way, sex was meant to be pleasureful for both the male and female at the same time. If you have something up your rear end I find it hard to believe someone can be pleasured, even comfortable for that matter. This is supposed to be an amazing time, and a stronger passion and love is supposed to be built off this. If you tell me it is then your only fooling yourself. Once again I love dearly my best friend, but I do not express that love through sex.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 07:16 AM on May 12, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you think that was a huge post, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!!  

Assumptions?  Are you serious!!  Let me remind you of a previous quote:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 02:39 AM on May 9, 2004 :
"Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study…”


Even given that statement, I find it amusing that you pick up on my supposed assumptions, when your initial posts lack any real detail.  Are you sure it's only me that doesn't know what you are talking about?  If you read closely, I was trying to encourage you to specify whether you were referring to HIV, or STD's in general.  I gave you two options, but you STILL can't detail which particular illnesses you are referring to, because that could expose your real prejudice on this issue.  On the upside, I see that you have accepted that you can no longer make sweeping generalisations in relation to gay couples, now that you are specifically referring to gay males.  That's a good start!

Don't get confused on this, I'm not implying that human reproduction was ever meant to occur any other way, than a male having sex with a female.

But have you ever considered the other reasons why gay males have such high infection rates?  Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't need to take measures against birth control, that also relate to safe sex?

Since I'm so good at making assumptions, I will also assume you are not willing to tackle my point about gay females.

I'm also waiting to see how you address the fact that sexual behaviour is the real issue here and that heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

Furthermore, if you had done any real research on scientific data, you would know that it is the passive partner who is at the highest risk of infection during anal sex.  And guess what, heterosexual couples who also practise unprotected anal sex are exposed to the same problem.

I don't have an issue if all you want to do is sit here and expose your prejudice toward gay males, but lets be clear that sexual behaviour is what transmits STD's.  That effects ALL people who have multiple partners, not just gay men.



-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 6:59 PM on May 12, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from valet_dave at 6:59 PM on May 12, 2004 :
If you think that was a huge post, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!!  

Assumptions?  Are you serious!!  Let me remind you of a previous quote:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 02:39 AM on May 9, 2004 :
"Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study…”


Even given that statement, I find it amusing that you pick up on my supposed assumptions, when your initial posts lack any real detail.  Are you sure it's only me that doesn't know what you are talking about?  If you read closely, I was trying to encourage you to specify whether you were referring to HIV, or STD's in general.  I gave you two options, but you STILL can't detail which particular illnesses you are referring to, because that could expose your real prejudice on this issue.  On the upside, I see that you have accepted that you can no longer make sweeping generalisations in relation to gay couples, now that you are specifically referring to gay males.  That's a good start!

Don't get confused on this, I'm not implying that human reproduction was ever meant to occur any other way, than a male having sex with a female.

But have you ever considered the other reasons why gay males have such high infection rates?  Are you sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't need to take measures against birth control, that also relate to safe sex?

Since I'm so good at making assumptions, I will also assume you are not willing to tackle my point about gay females.

I'm also waiting to see how you address the fact that sexual behaviour is the real issue here and that heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals.

Furthermore, if you had done any real research on scientific data, you would know that it is the passive partner who is at the highest risk of infection during anal sex.  And guess what, heterosexual couples who also practise unprotected anal sex are exposed to the same problem.

I don't have an issue if all you want to do is sit here and expose your prejudice toward gay males, but lets be clear that sexual behaviour is what transmits STD's.  That effects ALL people who have multiple partners, not just gay men.



valet_dave
If you think that was a huge post, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!!


Oh my goodness, I'm so excited!!!

Please stop with the childish games, I'm not on this forum to see who can make the bigger post.  


You want to know the real reason I fight all this? Because I believe in the Bible, and it says a number of times that homosexuality is a sin.

The only reason I talked about gay males, is because I don't feel like typing out, male and female everytime I talk about gay people having sex. You want to hear what I have to say about women, fine. First of all, for the record when I say gay sex, I mean all gays, male or female. So gay sex, It's wrong because there is no product of there so called love. Sex was not made only for pleasure. Now don't go making a huge post on how sex is for pleasure, because it is, but thats not the only reasons we have sex. When the sperm meets the egg, that is the only way a baby can be made, with one man and one woman. Whether sex is between two males or two females it is impossible for them to make a baby. Now if sex is a way to express love, and a result of sex is a baby, then how can this equation work with gay people?

I'm also waiting to see how you address the fact that sexual behaviour is the real issue here and that heterosexuals can be just as promiscuous as homosexuals.


Just because I give a reason why homosexuality is lust, dosn't mean I believe the rest of the heterosexual world is perfect. A promiscuous heterosexual is just as lustful as a person who is having gay relations.  

If you read closely, I was trying to encourage you to specify whether you were referring to HIV, or STD's in general.


HIV and STDs are not the only thing that expose gays to illness...


"THE HEALTH RISKS
OF GAY SEX
By John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
C RC
C O R P O R AT E R E S O U R C E C O U N C I LSM

Sexual relationships between members of
the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals
to extreme risks of sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders
and even a shortened life span."

In conclusion, everyone was born with lusty desires, most for the oppisite sex, while others for the same. We all have to control and contain our desires, the difference is once a heterosexual is married it is no longer a sin to have sex.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:20 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
valet_dave

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's good to hear you believe in the bible.  You will be glad to hear I have no further questions!

Besides, I wouldn't want to get into a contest on who has the biggest post!    Oops, was that childish... sorry.. (just trying to add a little gutter humour, since that's where heretics like me spend so much time!).

I liked your conclusion, that ties up everything nicely!

You're a good sport and I've enjoyed our discussion.  Look forward to chatting again soon.  

PS:  Pass on my regards to John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.

Cheers,
Dave



-------
Life BEFORE death. You know it makes sense.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:21 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
prayforsurf0

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from valet_dave at 7:21 PM on May 13, 2004 :
That's good to hear you believe in the bible.  You will be glad to hear I have no further questions!

Besides, I wouldn't want to get into a contest on who has the biggest post!    Oops, was that childish... sorry.. (just trying to add a little gutter humour, since that's where heretics like me spend so much time!).

I liked your conclusion, that ties up everything nicely!

You're a good sport and I've enjoyed our discussion.  Look forward to chatting again soon.  

PS:  Pass on my regards to John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.

Cheers,
Dave




A little sarcasm in the air? Regardless, ::raises glass::

I enjoyed our debate, excuse me for getting a little heated. I'm sure you understand,

Chris

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:18 PM on May 13, 2004 | IP
Lisab

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from prayforsurf0 at 8:21 PM on May 10, 2004 :Do you honestly think that a child with two gay parents is going to be treated the same in school by the other kids as if he had two normal parents? I go to school, and I can tell you that kids get ragged on for every little thing, if they found out that someone had two gay parents that kid would never hear the end of it, he would suffer socially from the abuse from school, of course there will be a few nice people who will be friends with him and except him, but overall that child will suffer abuse from school.


Oh, I see--so, parents that might possibly cause their children to suffer taunts should then not be allowed to have children. What about, just for a start....ugly parents, trailer-trash, low income, obviously any parent with any sort of deformity...etc. Those children could be abused by others. Yet I can't picture you saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to have children? Let's look at the reality again. Many gay couples are raiging children right now. Surveys suggest as many as 9 million American children live in homes with at least one gay parent. If they are abused,  it is not the fault of the children nor of the parents. The ones at fault for this are the bigots, and they should be the ones to change. This seems to be an argument against discrimination rather than an argument against gay couples adopting.

I'm not saying gay parents wouldnt be good parents, not at all, but its unfair to the child putting it in that situation without even thinking of what the child deserves, like a real family with a mother and father.


There are hundreds of babies that are given up for adoption each day and I can tell you that a child that's a ward of an orphanage or the state is in a MUCH worse situation. I think as long as it were either a mother and father, 2 moms or 2 dads, 1 mother or 1 father, as long as they LOVE that child, clothe them, feed them, educate them and let them grow to their upmost potential it doesn't make a difference. I've known a lesbian couple who have adopted a child with a handicap. They are responsible, involved parents. It has been my experience that gays who have adopted, or given birth to children (with a sperm donor) have taken the responsibility much more seriously than many straight couples with children.

What does this have anything to do with gay sex being unnatural? That is not even my point, if you look at the source given you will clearly see that the results found was research done by professional scientists. It is a fact that homosexuals live shorter lives because of the unnatural lives they permit themselves to be involved in. Why would a homosexual die sooner than a heterosexual? Because he is living an unnatural life which is threatening to his life, heterosexuals don't die earlier from sex, in fact, if they are truly involved in a deep love then they are healthier. Don't argue facts such as this, it is found and proven that homosexuals die sooner than they would have if they were normal.


International Journal of Epidemiology study on life expectancy looked at HIV infected people in a select urban area from 1987-1992. Much has changed since then, and the researchers of the study admit that much has changed. Gay Life Expectancy Revisited
No doubt that when AIDS was first discovered in the 80's it was spread most rapidly amongst gay males who had unsafe sex. What does that have to do with today? AIDS is now spreading fastest amongst heterosexuals because they take HIV far less seriously than homosexuals. And gay women are actually the safest group from AIDS and STDs. It is basically promiscuity, not a specific sexual orientation that predisposes a person most to sexually transmitted diseases. And what does that have to do with gay marriage? It seems to me that to accept gay marriage, with all of it's rights and responsibilities, would surely discourage promiscuity.



 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 1:23 PM on May 17, 2004 | IP
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

marriage being between man and a woman? who cares of the dictionary. its only a deffinition. if u can't come up with a real argument to back up this statement then this statement is only for hating gays and denying their right for marriage!
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 1:58 PM on July 5, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.