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 Rights Poll
       your thoughts on gay rights

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

Poll Question: Concerning homosexuality, which most closely resembles your beliefs?   (24 votes)
  Nothing wrong with it; gays should have the right to marry and adopt. n/a
  Homosexuality is wrong; but they should still have the right to marry and adopt. n/a
  Homosexuality is wrong; gays should not have the right to marry and adopt. n/a
Guests Cannot Vote


    
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's hear what everyone thinks about gay rights.
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 02:05 AM on December 24, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't find it a natural state, nor do I think that children should be exposed to it. Now here come the angry replys...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:01 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. How will a child's life be in that situation? What would other children say, do? How much are you willing to hurt the child?
2. You raise them making it seem acceptable when it really isn't to most of the world. They grow up thinking it is normal (I stated before that I don't think it is natural... most people living in that lifestyle get away from it later in life and become normal people.)


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:08 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to #1: How will a child be affected by an environment where we respect minorities rights? I'd guess positively, but thats just me.
to #2: You have to start somewhere. For years christianity wasn't acceptable to most of the world. Someone had to start believing in it. If we headed off all unacceptable ideas at the start, it'd be a dull world indeed.
to the parenthesis: got any stats to support the claim that most gays walk away from the lifestyle?


-------
"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: 10:37 PM on December 29, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think the effect on a child would be positive... Why do you think it would be?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:53 AM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The effect would be either neutral or positive. I don't believe that, innately, gays provide some uniquely good environment that would be transferred onto children by their prescence (or a uniquely bad one either for that matter). But exposing them to a group that has endured so much hate and revile over the years, thus presumably heading off that hate at the start, I think is a positive benefit.


-------
"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: 11:37 AM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't you think the child is going to have a hard time early in life?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:43 AM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

prejudice isnt inborn. it is taught. if the children were all taught that the prejudice is wrong, it would not form or at least would form in a weaker manifestation. Problems start when you wait and the prejudice begins to form due to lack of teaching


-------
"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: 2:25 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's not going to happen for some time.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:35 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

doesnt mean we shouldnt start. it took 100 years after the emancipation proclomation for blacks to gain civil rights. a journey of a thousand miles...


-------
"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: 2:38 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is almost a pointless argument because I don't think that it's a natural state. Does anyone have a percentage of how many people get away from the lifestyle later in life and become normal people? I'd suspect it to be rather high.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:39 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

normality or naturality isnt a prerequisite for rights. nor is the statistic u are looking for an adequete justification for denying rights (my guess is its quite low). Actually, I don't know if this helps, but one stat I know is according to a report by Dr. Alfred Kinsey only around 50% of the general population can be considered purely heterosexual. so perhaps its a bit less abnormal than we thought


-------
"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: 2:45 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The real point of a relationship is to reproduce. They cannot reproduce natuarally, can they?

I don't think they should be allowed to marry because marriage is between a man and a woman. A lot of them end up getting married anyway.

I don't think children should be exposed to that kind of environment. It wouldn't be a normal family, it gives the child an idea that something is acceptable when it is not to most. (Mainly just reiterating what I said before...)


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:50 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mainly reiterating what u said before without refuting any of the arguments i posted above to it.
I date girls i have no intention of reproducing with. Should that be illegal? Hardly. And who gave you the authority to say what is and isn't the "purpose" of a human activity. Humans do plenty of things that arent directly related to a biological cause. Watching the New Jersey Devils play ice hockey is one. we don't ban that now do we?
Your second point is circular logic. But even if we accept the validity of the claim, we can still legalize civil unions under it can't we? That would give them the legal benefits of a marriage, and we could give it seperate name to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage. happy?
Crossapply my earlier critique to your third point (if we didnt allow anything that wasnt normal once...)


-------
"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: 7:14 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think they have the right to marry but not the right to adopt. It is only natural for a man and woman to have kids.


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 7:32 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

natural this natural that. read my earlier critique on the naturality argument, along with my quote of Dr. Kinsey's statistic, and get back 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: 8:12 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I consider it morally wrong by Religious belief as a main, so what I said was just backing to me.

I see those people more as confused... there aren't many animals on Earth that have such tendencies. I seem to recall reading somewhere that most of them get married and become normal people later in life.

Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

I didn't say the behavior shouldn't be legal, I said they shouldn't be allowed to marry or expose children to the lifestyle.

Marriage I could see movement on, but not the adoption issuse. I agree with gum girl that only a man and a woman are meant to have children. Any child living in such an arrangement would probably have a lot of emotional issues as a result of early childhood. They'd probably be ostracized from people in normal situations in a public environment. Again, I don't think something should be made to seem acceptable when it is not to most people.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 8:34 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A man and a man and a woman and a woman simply cannot have a baby. It doesnt work that way. They were not SUPPOSED to have one or god or whoever else created us would have made it that way. Why should the child they adopt have to suffer being made fun of because of their gay parents?


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:43 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

again, if we define marriage as one man one women, can we create "civil unions" with the same legal status?

The harmful to children argument was analyzed by the American Pediatric Association and was debunked. It showed no greater risk of harm/ostracization in the adopted children of gay families than in other adopted children.

The couple doesnt have to HAVE the baby per se. they can adopt it, i.e. raise it. there isnt any thing to suggest it is unnatural for gays to RAISE a child (it takes a village...)


-------
"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: 10:45 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dsadevil- you mean to tell me that children adopted by gay couples will not get made fun of more then children that are adopted by a regular couple? That is not true...


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 10:55 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's my take: the "civil unions" where two homosexual people stay together as a married couple and enjoy most of the same benifits is OK. However, the idea of "marrige" and raising children together with same sex parents is almost as bad as having just one parent. I have noticed (not as a scientifc study, but just with my friends and co-workers) that people with a mother and father work better and get along better than people with just one parent (or one sex of parent)


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 11:08 PM on December 30, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's been shown in many studies.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:55 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But no study has shown that having TWO parents of the same sex is any worse than two parents of different sex.
all im saying is that in terms of overall lasting harms, there is no difference between the adopted children of homo and heterosexual parents.


-------
"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: 2:25 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most surely untrue. I'd be devastated living in such a family... anyone who is has to endure much harm for most of their young life. I doubt there'd be little or no difference.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:39 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would YOU want to have gay parents dsadevil?


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 4:12 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The question is: would I care? and the answer is: no, I wouldn't care.
Broker, who am I suppose to believe? Your assumption that "it just can't be!" or a scientific study done by the national association of pediatric doctors? Forgive me, but I think that this is abit of an Ad Vercundium on you part.


-------
"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: 4:30 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see how anyone could say that such an arrangement has no effect on the child. It's absurd! Of course it's going to affect the child! What's school going to be like for them? How much emotional trauma do they have to endure?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 4:33 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Broker, why do you ignore everything DsaDevil says? Why do you think yourt feeling about whatr itr would be like is more accurtatre then studies done by experts in the field? why do you make huge stratemenrts with nothing tro back itr up. For example, saying most gays change latrert in life...where does trhis come from otrhert trhan wishful thinking on your part? in factr, the american psychiatric association renounces such attremptrs, because rthey arte emotionally coertcive (which is anathema tp therapy), and almostr all run by religious groups (which are a tad biased, yes, hmm?). and saying is doesn't occur much in animals??? do you read oher people's posts? animal behavioralists say 50% of known species exhibitr homosexual behavior and even same-sex coupling for life. does trhatr sound unnatural? why don'tr you try pursuing trhe truth instread of an agenda? learn a little before you wrtite ignoirant posts.

and considert this...even if you arte rtightr and there is the portential fort hardship on the partr of the child...trhe same was said 9and probably true) about childrten of intrert-racial marriages (just rent GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER)...so do you think blacks and whitres shouldn't have children together? let's just get down to the nuts and bolts of it...the rteal reason you are against it is because you think it's disgusting and you are disgustred by the idea of children being artound it.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:56 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's obviously a factor, but who can honestly say that there will be no emotional effect on a child? Can any of you honestly say that? Studies and opinions don't always mean much...I think all of us know that. Pay your expert and they will say anything you want. We all refer to studies, yes, but those studies don't allways mean much and are moreover backing for our argument. If I had some money I could get any number of experts to say anything I wanted them to say.  You all know how much a child in such a situation would have to endure. Put yourself in the situation, no matter what your view. Do you honestly think that you won't have to endure more emotional trauma?

On reverting to a normal lifestyle: let's just say I saw a percentage in a study... lol

Do you know how small the estimate is for animals with those tendencies? I'll post here what I posted somewhere else:

Do most animals have free will? Most scientists don't think so. Animals are guided by instinct, so it must be a genetic glitch or confusion that causes them to exibit such behaviors. The main purpose of animals usually is to reproduce, so what sense would it make for them to exibit those tendencies?

The reason why there are men and women is so that they can make more men and women. Be it genetic mistake or confusion, the said behavior wouldn't make sense occurring in nature, would it?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:07 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I could have thousands of "experts" telling you that cats don't exist if I paid them enough, for example.  

Who funded the study by American Psychiatric Association?

Racial prejudice isn't nearly as bad as it once was. Inter-racial marriages are more accepted and greater in number these days. I don't think they really bother anyone unless the person's a racist. There's a big difference in that and having two men or two women for parents, wouldn't you say so? Different skin colors occur in nature, I don't think sam sex couples are meant to.

If both are arguments are true I'd feel bad for children that have two male or female parents with different skin colors... They'd certain have to deal with a lot of ridicule if we were both correct.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:16 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell me, Alex, do you think a child would be better in the care of you and a boyfriend or with a normal family?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:25 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i don't understand how you think. you think homosexuality is wrong because it doesn'tr seem to occur often in nature and because some religious book tells you so, but apparently there is a big conspiracy behind the American Psychiatric Association, and what they say couldn't possibly be true. Why is it that u are so eager to find statistics that you hope support your point of view (ex: how many gays change back to heterosexuality), but studies that oppose your point of view are obviously concocted? why can'tr you be an honest thinker and see the narrow-mindedness in that approach?

and your point about animals is bunk. why is it that the same guys who reject evolution when they're talkin about creationism always resort to using a twisted version of it when they're talkin about gays??? you are making the classic misinterpretation of evolution. Evolution has no purpose. They're is nothing in nature that says the purpose of existence is reproduction. evolution is just the observed phenomenon of a trend towards more organization and complexity in species over time.

and if sex and marriage is just for reproduction, why aren't you saying heteros who don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to marry? the fact that you are not shows your artgument is just a cover for bigotry. and you never addressed Dsadevil's point about alfred kinsey - who said actually 80% of people are bisexual. i guess someone paid him of too...

and your point about inter-racial marriages is not addressing what I said. not now, but earliert when it was a much hotter issue (thus more similar to today's situation witrh gays), do you think it should have been illegal for a black and white couple to raise a child (or adopt one), on the grounds that it was too hard on the kid?

as for your question, i think the answer has nothing to do with that. a partental unit is notr better because it is same-sex or hetero - itr is based on how kind and loving the family environment is.

and don't you see how species yourt logic is?
1. society is full of people like me who think homosexualitry is wrong and many of trhem will be mean to kids of same-sex parents
2. thatr would be bad for the kids
3. therefore, gays shouldn't be able tro have kids

hmmm, maybe people who are mean to gays or kids of gays shouldn't be allowed tro have kids.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 05:21 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know you can get any expert to say anything you want with the right amount of money. Who funded the study?

It once was just for reproduction... a man and a man and a woman and a woman are not capable of reproducing, I don't think they're meant to have children.

There's a difference between two men and women adopting a child and a man and a woman with different skin colors adopting one. Would it have been illegal back awhile ago? Probably, but it would have been on racial grounds. Two men or two women cannot have children. Why should we expose the children to something most would deem harmful? Do you honestly think a child would be better off with you than with a normal family?

That reply seems a bit too emotionally charged for me to reply to... I'll leave it alone until later.

(Edited by Broker 1/1/2003 at 10:49 AM).


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 10:40 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you are so full of crap. stop repeating the same empty rhetoric.

BACK IT UP WITH SOMETHING

you are literally repeating the same lines. you say an expert can be paid anything to say anything, and yet you refer to studies as well. or is it just liberal experts who are subject to financial influence?

RESPOND TO OTHER PEOPLE'S POSTS - DON'T JUST POST BLINDLY

i completely do not understand what you just wrote about inter-racial marriages. my point is:
1. you say it should be illegal for gays to adopt because the children would be ridiculed by a society thatr sees same-sex marriages as bad
2. there was a time when MANY MANY people in society also saw inter-racial marriages as bad
3. by yourt rationale, do you think a black and white couple should have been legally barred from adopting or producing children because of the potential for their children to be ridiculed?

THE LINEAR LOGIC OF MY QUESTION IS VERY CLEAR - PLEASE DO ME THE SERVICE OF RESPONDING CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY TO IT

You repeated YET AGAIN that you don't think "they're meant to have children". Do you mean "meant to" in a religious sense (i don't see what other way you could mean that)? if so, do you really think this country should decide civil rights issues on the particularities of YOUR religion?

why do you ask me questions as if I haven't already answered them? I answered your question about whether i think the child would be well off with same-sex parents.

are u here to debate or what? if u are, then debate. make a point, and then back it up. don't just give gut feelings based on absolutely nothing. "oh, i seem to remember reading most gays go back to being straight...now where did I read that? hmmm"
"oh, they're just not meant to have kids...why? oh, they're just not..."
"i don't believe any experts...i don't believe anything about science or math or anything, cause you know, those experts, they're all bought and sold...except for the ones who say things I agree with..."

if you think i am being too harsh with the above, do me a favor and go back and look at your posts. tell me how i am wrong.

and how is my reply too emotionally charged??? all of my points have been logical, based on fact (well, those crazy expertsa anyway...), and presented in a clear, coherent fashion. sounds like a cop-out to me...


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:20 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your replies are emotionally charged. I won't bother taking my time to respond to that... that's basically an attack. It's pretty bad when your resort to that.

I'm pulling out of this debate.

One thing... be it by evolution or creation,  the latter of which I think is true, two men or two women were not meant to have children, it is physically impossible. End of point.

(Edited by Broker 1/1/2003 at 11:38 AM).

(Edited by Broker 1/1/2003 at 11:41 AM).


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:35 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

that is the most pathetic thing i have seen on this website. you are pulling out of the debate because I am too emotionally charged??? gimme a break. fallingupwards accused me of condoning the murder of thousands of babies and i didn't blink an eye. you are exiting this debate because you have no argument. two men cannot physically have a baby? like, no duh. that was never the debate. we are talking about adoption. how does their ability to physically produce a child have anything to do with legal right to adopt? and how does creationism support your argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:49 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are basically attacking me. I find that simply unacceptable. Debate is one thing, attacks are another.

Maybe you should read everything I said...  then maybe it would make sense.

This is the last time I post here.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:57 AM on January 1, 2003 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i agree with this fact. 2 men and 2 women were not meant to have children because its physically impossible. And if they are not able to have children they are not meant to raise children. Thats how I feel.

Peace



-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:41 AM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gays have the right to remain silent. Any thing they say can and will be used against them by the court of matthew shepardism. They have the right to a beat down and a swift kick to the nuts.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:23 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am hardcore straight man.

I wish more men were gay.

It would be easier for me to pick up women.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:27 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sourbubblegum:

"if they are not able to have children they are not meant to raise children."

so by that rationale an infertile heterosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt children. correct?

guest...

you are a fucking nazi.






-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 8:40 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guest might have been being sarcastic.


-------
"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: 9:06 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex...

No because heterosexuals can have kids. There are reasons that cause someone to be infertile like an STD or if the had a disease or cancer, etc.

hmm i really didnt understand what guest was trying to say at all.


-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:17 PM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no i was saying that as a reference to the way gays are improperly treated...as in that is the mentality people have.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:49 AM on January 3, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

guest...

sorry for jumping the gun...usually i get sarcasm but if u look at your post i think you'd agree it could easily be mistaken for serious.

sourbubblegum...

here's what i don't understand. you say heteros were meant to have children (i assume u mean by God because their is nothing that connotes "meaning" in our biology...only capability...nothing says we are "supposed" to have children). so since homosexuality does obviously exist, and you are right in saying 2 men cannot physically produce children, perhaps God "meant" for gays to adopt children.

also, if men and women are "meant" to have children, should a heterosexual couple that does not want to have their own biological offspring be allowed to adopt? after all, like two homos who choose to be together, they are skirking their "intended" responsibility to breed. aren't they also defying the way things should be?

also, do u really think in a secular society someone's civil rights should be determined by your idea of what biological lifeforms are "meant" to do? Is "God's design" supposed to dictate American laws? If so, which God? not all religions believe homosexuality is wrong. are u suggesting we hand over our legal decision making to the Christian Church? should we end democracy right now?

now u can try to say your "meaning" is based on biology and not theology, but trust me, you will lose. nothing in biology - NOTHING - suggests a purpose or goal. theists imbue it with that meaning because they claim to see intelligent design.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 08:53 AM on January 3, 2003 | IP
sourbubblegum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Alex

When i say straight couples were meant to have children im not talking about by God. I mean by any religion. They are meant to have children because they can together and 2 men and 2 women cannot have children together so thats why i say they were not meant to.

Im not even a Christian and no i do not think that homosexuality is wrong. My beleifs are just that i dont think anyone who created the world intended for gays to raise children since they cannot have them. Also because of what the kid would have to deal with being made fun of etc in todays society. And no i dont think the legal decisions should be handed over to the christians we should have our rights.

Peace,

Btw, I have nothing against gay people. I think they should have all the same rights as everyone else i just feel different about the adoption issue.



-------
Our days are numbered. Live each day to the fullest because there may not be a tomorrow.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:04 AM on January 3, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They should have the same rights as everyone, except...not. B/c that is what you are saying.

Buddhist's don't have a problem with gays adopting. Neither do Jews (the "father" of christianity). So religiously or irreligiously, the point falls.


-------
"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: 3:09 PM on January 3, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i am not very very familiar with Judaism (i wish i was) but i do know that they have the Torah. now the Torah includes the first five books of the bible, which includes leviticus, which has laws against homosexuals.

not that i'm disagreeing with you dsa, because i usual agree with you on most topics. it is just not very clear to me what Jewish people believe


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:23 AM on January 4, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Judiasm is a pretty laidback religion. We have the Torah and Talmud as a guide, but Jews are perfectly free to question it, in fact we are encouraged to. I personally question that line of Leviticus as immoral. And its well within my religious rights to do so, so long as I can back it up.


-------
"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: 2:09 PM on January 4, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sourbubblegum...

yourt logic is running around like a chicken with is head cut off. you just confessed your argument is based on religion/religious belief. laws are not supposed to be based on what religious belief says God did or did not intend. the USA is secular - trhat doesn'tr mean trhe govt is just separated frtom chrtistianity...it means separatred from all religion. you can't deny a group of people a right because you think in a theological sense they weren'tr meant to have them.

and u never responded to my other point...if u are looking at this from a teleological point of view (which u are), couldn't the fact that gays can't physically reproduce suggest that a highert power meant for them to ADOPT? that logical line is just as plausible as yours.

btw, please stop trying to pass yourself off as a friend-of-homos or something...saying you support all our rights except that itsy bitsy one about having children doesn't exactly win you brownie points with the gay community.

and i don't know why you keep repeating the thing about the kids suffering when the psychiatric and psychological community predominatrely agree studies show thatr isn't true. or have u justr CHOSEN tro not believe trhese studies because they differ from yourt standing belief?


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 10:49 PM on January 4, 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.