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
     debate class - Gay Rights
       doods, need gay rights debate info

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, hooyah

Once again, how does letting gays get married and adopt kids infringe upon YOUR RIGHTS?

Your argument is this:

"I personally feel that being gay, and gay sex is abnormal and as a result morally wrong.  So I think we should grant the rights of communities too handle those issues independently of the government"?

If thats what you think, then fine.  However, ALLOWING good gay people too adopt kids, and gay-couples too marry does not infringe on YOUR RIGHTS.    This is the error in your thinking.  

NOT ALLOWING A SEGMENT OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION THE RIGHT TOO MARRY WHO THEY WANT, AND TOO DO THE ACT OF LOVE IN ADOPTING KIDS, is THE INFRINGEMENT ON THEIR RIGHTS.  

Take this oppertunity, too learn from this board.  Always seek too learn what is RIGHT.

As for calling you a homophobe.. , i'll stop calling you a homophobe I guess, if you stop referring too gays as "abnormal, or unnatural".  Everything in nature is normal.  Natrual=nature.  Homophobia, simply is fear of all things gay.  Your terming of "anything gay, as abnormal" is no different.  So if the glove fits, you must.. oh, wait n/m. lol

but, my main question is, how do gays infringe on your rights, if they marry or adopt kids?


-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 2:05 PM on December 14, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Freedom of speech is granted to individuals. Due process rights same. free assembly same. free exercise of religion same. jury trial same. Right to privacy (where gay rights fall under) same. The rights guarenteed are guarenteed to individual people not the collective state.
Right to privacy is a "General right" but even if we accept that it should be state jurisdiction (in which case I assume u favor the repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act), the fact remains then that the STATES should make the decision to protect gay rights, and that they are obligated to do that under the constitution. It still works.
this isnt about free speech. its about the right to conduct private, sexual actions free from government oversight. That isnt political correctness, and it isnt speech, that is respecting the right to privacy.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:25 PM on December 14, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hooyah...

i am going to address arguments on morality. please respond to above points on legality and constitution too though.

could u please remind me why homosexuality is immoral? don't ramble, use bullets or something to succinctly delineate your points so i can see them clearly and respond. and i agree with u saying homosexuality is abnormal, if you mean simply it deviates from the norm (of course, we may someday discover that heterosexuality is also abnormal, and that the norm is in fact bisexuality..that's my my totally unsubstantiated guess anyway). you just need to fill in the gap for me where abnormal leads to immoral. and please don't lapse into your "well, most people think so" garbage, cause I don't believe that you really think morality is defined by perception, and yet for some reason believe in a higher moral authority (God).


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:13 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
btimsah

|        |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hooyah has lost this "debate".  If it ever was that.


-------
"Condemn and you will be condemned".

"Judge and you will be judged."
 


Posts: 18 | Posted: 12:47 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know what?  !@#$ it!

Let's let gays get married and ADOPT children, since they can't have any NATURALLY, NORMALLY.

How many of you in here would want YOUR kids to turn out gay?
It got awful damn quiet in here all of a sudden!
Now answer me this: Why wouldn't you want them to turn out to be gay?  (Moral reasons, what?....)

If a scientist found a "gene" for homosexuality, and thus made it possible to "test" the unborn for the gene, and even "correct" it via biotechnology, would you do it?  Damn right you would!

Homosexuality is immoral!
It is the PEOPLE who define what morality is, and if most of you answer the above questions the way I think you will, then the consensus is almost anonymous, homosexuality is wrong, immoral, unnatural, illogical.

If gays want to have sex, let 'em do it!  Let 'em live together, whatever!

But should we allow gays to adopt children?  Seriously, we don't want people to turn out gay, do we?  Hell, what better way to increase the gay population than to have gays raising (teaching) children.  Children will do what they see their parents doing.  That's how they learn.

I don't want my kids to be gay!  If they go to school and interact with other children that have gay parents, and are probably leaning towards becoming gay themselves,  MY CHILDREN are being influenced by something that I don't care for.  That INFRINGES on my rights, to answer your question for the 1000th time!

Face it, people.  We don't want our kids to be gay.  So why pass laws that will ultimately increase the gay population, thus creating more influence on OUR children to themselves become gay?

Dsa: so you're saying that the government should stay the hell out of the people's business?
Hmmm....for some reason I was thinking you were a liberal.  since you're always bashing conservatives.  Now YOU pick one!

btimsah: oh mighty ringleader, determinor of he who wins and loses, endowed with the mighty spirit of debate, I beg you to give me another chance...yada yada yada yada...

Where I come from, it ain't over 'til it's over!

Thank  you ladies and gentlemen.  (And you, too, btimsah.)


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 04:15 AM on December 23, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hooyah:

there is so much crap coming outta yer mouth it is hard to wade through it all. instead of just giving random speeches, try debating. that means responding to people's arguments, not just spouting rhetoric. watch what i do...i will respond to each of your crappy points in turn.

1. you ask if people would WANT their kids to be gay. do you WANT your kids to be really athletic? do you WANT your kids to be really good looking? personally, I don't WANT my kids to be anything in particular except happy and kind to others. otherwise, I don't CARE one way or another whether they are white or black, gay or straight, short or tall, handsome or ugly. and instead of asking questions and then answering them for people, why not wait to see what people will say? try giving the other debaters the chance to voice their own opinions instead of putting words in their mouths.

2. u say PEOPLE define what is immoral. so, by the rationale, do u think slavery only became immoral after 51% decided it was? if nazis accounted for 51% or more of the population and they said killing jews was right, and one person with integrity said no, would that person's behavior be immoral? i thought u believed in God. isn't that a higher moral authority, which means there is right and wrong defined outside the realm of human thought?

3. u say:
"But should we allow gays to adopt children?  Seriously, we don't want people to turn out gay, do we?  Hell, what better way to increase the gay population than to have gays raising (teaching) children.  Children will do what they see their parents doing.  That's how they learn."

instead of saying stuff that just fits your argument without thinking about it, why not try researching? studies show the adult sexual orientation of children raised by gays is NOT more likely to be gay than those children raised by straight parents.

4. u say:
"MY CHILDREN are being influenced by something that I don't care for.  That INFRINGES on my rights, to answer your question for the 1000th time"

so it is your right to have your children completely isolated from things that you "don't care for"? so if i don't care for blacks, should there be segregated schools for whites for me to send my children to? what if i don't care for catholics? should they have to live in different neighborhoods from me and my kids?

ultimately, here is your argument:
1. being gay is wrong cause a lot of people say it's wrong
2. since it's wrong, it is wrong to condone the spread of it by legalizing gay adoption
3. it is also my right to not alow gays or gay influence to come into contact with my children
4. this right is more important than any right a gay person might claim to have concerning the desire/need to have children.

in my humble opinion, this is textbook bigotry. i know u will say it is not, because textbook bigots never admit to bigotry. they always call it something else. all you have to do is replace "gay" with "black" and we can have ourselves a happy ol' KKK rally.

here's my argument:
1. deviance from the norm means only that...you cannot infer morality or immorality simply from looking at the frequency of an occurance, nor from the percentage of people who deem it to be moral or immoral (to do that is to completely invalidate the notion of morality as anything more than popular opinion, and by the way...by your own argument, most Christians (the majority religion in this country) disagree with you and do believe that morality is more than popular opinion).
2. u must demonstrate why a behavior is immoral and socially destructive before u deny it as a right
3. u have not demonstrated this, because all u have done is say lots of people don't like it (which is the same argument for racism and racist policies)
4. there is no scientific evidence to suggest homosexuality is a disease
5 and there is no scientific evidence to suggest that gay parents influence their children to be gay
6. conclusion: there is no strong argument opposing gay rights, so we should give them to them




-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:15 AM on December 23, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like I said, Alex, it got awful damn quiet in here.

Before I respond to your gay-biased post, I think I'll wait to hear what everyone else has to say concerning the questions I posed.

Meanwhile, per your request for a behavior that is "socially destructive," check out this website.

http://www.avert.org/gaystata.htm


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 01:32 AM on December 24, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okay, thanks for not answering my questions...

as for the website...very interesting.
would you mind interpreting the statistics for me? after all, this is a debate forum, so don't wait for me to make your arguments for you.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:26 AM on December 24, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okay, thanks for not answering my questions...

as for the website...very interesting.
would you mind interpreting the statistics for me? after all, this is a debate forum, so don't wait for me to make your arguments for you.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:30 AM on December 24, 2002 | IP
Nova

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From a faith based point of view, which can be explained by reason, Homosexuality is wrong. But i can not judge one for being gay when they do not know that it is wrong. God will Judge all in the end, i can only hope through showing people love and grace that you can see that Jesus loves you. The bible clearly shows that homosexuality is wrong. One can have homosexual thoughts and not act on them.

I have two Lesbian teachers who just recently Got married and had artificial incemination and now have a child. They lived together for a long time and they actually told us they did. now they have the same names. They are also looking for fights, they press their homosexuality onto other people and that is clearly wrong, we had to read stories written by and for gay people in class and then we have celebrate diversity day at school oh my gosh and then we have LGBTU day lesbian gay bisexual and undecided day at our school oh my gosh it is like they are saying be gay. That is overly forceful and overly representational of the number of hmosexual students at my school. Thus i did the only thing possible i baught a straight pride shirt and wore it on celbrate diversity day.


-------
One God; One Truth; One Way
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:12 AM on December 27, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hooyah, if my child turned out to be gay, I honestly wouldnt care. happy? I personally wouldn't genetically engineer my child to fit exact specifications. Apparently you would.

I must admit to being disturbed by only having those GLBTU days. It does seem a bit one sided, and I don't support it.

Oh, and socially liberals are ALOT more likely to stay out of peoples lives than conservatives. Abortion ring a bell? Gay Rights too. Religious freedom also. And of course your favorite issue, flag burning. It is conservatives who on social issues like the govt to meddle. You said it best yourself, whatever the majority wants, the government can impose as official morality. that sounds like meddling to me.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 01:50 AM on December 29, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am gay AND I act on it so... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

omigosh...your lesbian teachers "actually" told you they lived together!!! wow, that is so "in yer face".

and oh my gosh, there were books by gay authors on your reading list???? hey, maybe "Invisible Man" shouldn't be on high school reading lists cause those blacks are just getting too pushy.

you have no freaking clue what it means to be gay in this society. you think gays are being "in yer face" by having marches, and wearing rainbow necklaces and tight clothes, or mentioning they live together, or having a day to celebrate their sexual orientation. heteros throw their sexuality in everyone's faces. i know, i did go to high school. i had to sit through countless pubescent conversations that went sort of like this:"Hey, I'd do her. Yo, dude, like I would totally do her too. Yeah, nice rack. Oh look at that chick...she's so hot. I'd do her, and her and her and her..."
have you ever heard the term heterosexism? it's the constant bombardment that gay people feel every day, the expectation of heterosexual behavior and of established gender roles.

and what is wrong with GLBTU day???? i don't think undecided means you, it means people who are struggling to define their sexual identity. if you feel secure about yours, why feel threatened? oh you wore a straight pride shirt? fantastic. i don't even know what that is. is that like wearing a white pride shirt on Martin Luther King Day? what a sensible thing to do.

and dsa, to your point. the reason why it's okay to have a GLBTU day is because we don't get anything else. because sometimes it takes a little something more to show your support for people who you know are having a hard time, especially young people. it's not one-sided. you guys get to feel comfortable talking about your boyfriend or girlfriend to anyone. you guys get to marry. you guys don't have to worry about saying stuff or doing stuff that might get your ass beaten.

the reason so many gay adolescents kill themselves isn't because depression is naturally linked with homosexuality...it's because of things like this that happen throughout their whole lives...
being told you're a sissy by your peers
being told it's a disease by a teacher
being told u will burn in hell by your priest
being told you're not a good son by your parents
going to a GLBTU day celebration and seeing one of your asshole classmates wearing a straight pride shirt.



-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:50 AM on December 29, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex, I think you know my beliefs well enough to know I don't condone any of the horrors you mentioned. But a "straight pride" shirt is not one of those horrific things. A straight person has the same right to be proud of his/her orientation as a gay person. I don't believe that we should only strive to make minorities comfortable. We should make EVERYONE comfortable. The attack has to be on the actions and words that make people uncomfortable, not countering them with actions and words that merely make others uncomfortable. Feel free to display that you are gay. I support you in that. But needing a day to show how proud you are is not needed at all, no more than I need a straight pride day, or a jewish pride day. I could qualify as a minority too, but I dont ask for days to be proud of it. Im proud every day.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:21 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that's just absurd.

of course people should be able to wear straight pride shirts, but be honest...do you think a person really wears that shirt on this kind of day just to say he/she is proud of being straight? puh-leeze! they wear it to show their resentment and opposition towards gays and lesbians. so therefore, i feel VERY comfortable saying that if i see a person wearing that shirt on that kind of day, there is a 99% chance he/she is an asshole.

and how can u possibly compare gay discomfort to hetero discomfort??? heteros feel uncomfortable because they don't like gays and think it's disgusting. gays feel uncomfortable because they get shit on by the government and society.

and comparing jews to gays??? jews do get their days...religious holidays that facilitate a sense of community and familiarity. we don't have that. that kind of day isn't about pride so much as it about getting together, feeling a little solidarity, receiving moral support from gay-friendly heteros, etc.

you said: "The attack has to be on the actions and words that make people uncomfortable, not countering them with actions and words that merely make others uncomfortable."

two gays walking down the street holding hands would make 3/4 of the city uncomfortable.
nova's teachers mentioning they live together makes her uncomfortable.
gay scout leaders make parents uncomfortable.
et cetera et cetera et cetera.

the line of comfort almost always has to be crossed to reach what's right. the fact is gays are probably the most isolated minority in america, not just from other groups but within their own group. they DO need a day - one freaking day out of the year - to see each other and feel nice and happy. at my college the administration wouldn't even allow a GLBT resource center where kids could go and speak to counsellors or each other, because they would mean condoning such deviant behavior (catholic school - what scumbags).

i think you are confusing social equality to actual equality. everything doesn't have to be the same. you don't need a straight pride day to  have a gay pride day - because the gay pride day is because gays ALREADY lack so much that straights have, and why the heck would straights need a pride day???? do whites need one??? we both know what kinda whites and what kinda straights would push for those days. they are members of the same 3 letter club.

i really don't give a rat's ass about straight people's comfort level. if I was black in the 1960s (heck, even today) i wouldn't tiptoe around to placate white supremacists. and today we still have scum of the earth like Trent Lott in government. in a society where so many people think i am going to burn in hell, don't you think the institutions should try to go out of their way a little bit to show their support? the field is so lop-sided already.

and by the way, if straights want a pride day, they can have it. if that's all it takes, then fine. but we also both know that's not all it takes, and that that kind of argument is really a diversion. they don't care about diversity day. they care about repressing our right to marry, adopt, not get fired, etc.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:50 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex you are misrepresenting the issue. Speaking legally, when employing a discriminatory measure (in this case, having gay pride days but not straight pride days [i use discriminatory in a legal sense only, not to imply that it is bad, but merely that it is creating action for one group but not another]) to achieve a legitimate governmental objective (in this case, removing societal stigma to homosexuals) it can only be done if it is the ONLY/LEAST RESTRICTIVE way of achieving that end. As having gay pride days is neither the only nor least restrictive way of achieving this end, it fails constitutional tests.
I'd be inclined to agree that the majority of straight pride shirt wearers are doing it to express a distaste for gay rights. i'd also be inclined to believe that is wholly irrelelvant, and that viewpoint deserves equai OFFICIAL time as well. Or to give my own opinion, both views deserve no official time at all, the only official view should be that gays have the right to be gay, and the government will not discriminate against anyone in anyway on the basis of sexual orientation. the govt. should not take a stand on the morality or prideworthiness of it.
Jewish holidays are religious based not community based. It isn't just designed so we can feel good about ourselves. And the gay community can certainly make these holidays. the fed govt. just shouldnt recognize them.
My whole argument centers on official govt. action. The government shouldn't make people uncomfortable, but it SHOULD facilitate an environment where people can make others feel uncomfortable if they so desire. You lump the two together which is a fatal mistake.

In summation: My view on governmental obligation towards gays is this. The government has an obligation to foster an environment where anyone can have any sexual orientation, can act on their orientation, can express their orientation and can object to an orientation. And it should stay absolutely 100% neutral on its own opinion towards all four of these issues.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 01:01 AM on December 30, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok. how about a diversity day where every group can wear their own t-shirts etc.? would that be ok?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:48 AM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that would be better, but why is needed at all?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:27 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes....damnit...hooyah is back, again!
sorry..

As for the statistics, Alex...they're self-evident, but in a nutshell: Gays are, by far, at the greatest risk for getting HIV.
Is that destructive enough for ya?

Eliminate gay activity and you eliminate 42% (see the site I posted earlier) of new HIV cases.  Evidently there is a strong correllation between homosexuality and AIDS.

And you didn't anser MY question either, Alex.
Would you want your kid to turn out gay?
Yes or No?
Would anyone in here?

Do you want your kid to be at an extreme risk of getting HIV?  (Surely not?)
Come on people, can I get a simple yes or no answer.  Stop avoiding the question.

peace and Go Raiders!


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 04:04 AM on January 21, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Being destructive to themselves is their own right. Its only when they destroy others that we have a problem.

The question isn't would I WANT my kid to turn out gay, its, would I care? And the answer is no. I want my kid to be happy. I wouldn't want my kid to be republican either, can we ban them?

The HIV risk is only higher if you don't use protection. I'd teach my kid about condom use etc..


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 1:01 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hooyah at 04:04 AM on January 21, 2003 :

And you didn't anser MY question either, Alex.
Would you want your kid to turn out gay?
Yes or No?
Would anyone in here?



It is very difficult to be gay.  I would not want to be gay, nor would I want anyone I know to be gay simply because of people like you make it difficult.

I wish more men were gay.  It would be easier for me to pick up women.  You should think of gay men doing you a favor.  Every openly gay man is only less man I have to worry about competition.  Let's face it.  Gay men are lot more handsome that your average Joe.  They dress better and are more intune with straight women.  Thank God I don't have to compete with that.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:08 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did answer the question. I would not want my kid to be gay or straight. i would have no preference. that;s like asking a black person if they wanted their kid to be white, because the black kid might have to deal with discrimination. i like being gay. i'm not worried about AIDS because I am monogamous and careful. i can't say the same about a lot of straight people I know.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 4:26 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everyone has taken the politically correct stance on the question.  "We don't care."  Figures.

Kelvin, hmm I never thought of it that way.  But I'd rather compete with a few extra guys for women than to have my children, and everyone else, influenced by homosexuality.

dsa: yes. i guess they do have the right to be stupid if they want to.
And I also agree with you on the privacy thing you were talking about.  If they'll keep their "activities" private and away from the rest of society, then I say let them do whatever they want to.
Getting married and adopting children, however, obviously is not "keeping it private."


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 02:24 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting married isn't a private affair? I think I need to clarify "private" for y'all.

J.S. Mill's classic treatise "On Liberty" (a book every intelligent person should read) argues that anyone can do anything that concerns him and him alone, i.e., their private affairs. The fact that others SEE the action and dislike it doesn't remove it from the realm of privacy at all. In fact he specifically rejects that point, for if we allow a mere dislike of others actions to be a pretext for banning them, free speech is a dead letter. Since homosexual actions, including marriage, including adoption (children are left out of the whole "them and them alone" deal, as Mill specifically provides that his standards only apply to adults, and that people can enforce their will on children), do not directly impact anyone else, they are considered private.
Hooyah dislikes having to "see" homosexuality in society, but concedes that they can do what they will in private.
I dislike having to "see" hooyah's bigotry against homosexuals, but I will concede he can do it in private. But as soon as he puts it in a place I can hear, well, then he is violating my rights.
See the problem?


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 10:11 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
mrmazet

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hooyah at 04:04 AM on January 21, 2003 :
And you didn't anser MY question either, Alex.
Would you want your kid to turn out gay?
Yes or No?
Would anyone in here?


Honestly, I would prefer my children are striaght. But it's why that matters!

I don't care if they are bi/straight/gay in and of itself. I would prefer them being striaght becuase they would live an easier life that way!

I would love my child no matter what - just as much whatever their orientation is. And becuase of that love, I would want them to live the best possible life, which, because of the current, terrible way  society is, is a heterosexual life.
 


Posts: 122 | Posted: 1:45 PM on January 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hooyah at 04:04 AM on January 21, 2003 :
Yes....damnit...hooyah is back, again!
sorry..

As for the statistics, Alex...they're self-evident, but in a nutshell: Gays are, by far, at the greatest risk for getting HIV.
Is that destructive enough for ya?

Eliminate gay activity and you eliminate 42% (see the site I posted earlier) of new HIV cases.  Evidently there is a strong correllation between homosexuality and AIDS.

And you didn't anser MY question either, Alex.
Would you want your kid to turn out gay?
Yes or No?
Would anyone in here?

Do you want your kid to be at an extreme risk of getting HIV?  (Surely not?)
Come on people, can I get a simple yes or no answer.  Stop avoiding the question.

peace and Go Raiders!



Of COURSE I want my kids to be straight like me! The world would be a better place without fags. Especially if you are a weak vulnerable little heterosexual boy!!! A world without fags is a world in which you cna leave your boy with a male babysit and know for certain he will NOT be molested in your absence. It's the knowledge they can be placed into the Boy Scouts and won't be molested by a Scout leader. I wish all people were straight.

Heteroman

ps. Straight Pride, World Wide

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:15 PM on January 23, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.