Why I don't like gays & why theyre ways should not become acceptable

Since he's married, I'd say yeah- he does.

 

So, in your opinion, the ONLY THING a marriage is good for is to "reproduce?"

I feel very sorry for you! What a terrible life your prospective "wife" might have!
After all. . .once you're done "producing" children, it seems that a marriage would have no more reason to exist, right? Or at least, once the children "produced" by such union would reach the age 18. . .no reason for the marriage to continue. . right?

I got news for you. It doesn't take a "marriage" to "produce" babies!

And, a couple can "produce" babies and RAISE A FAMILY (which is AT LEAST as important than the "production" of babies) EVEN if that couple is not able to "produce" those babies together. Thank God, it is common place for both heterosexual couples and gay couples to use alternative means of "production!" (like artificial insimination, sperm donor, surrogate pregnancy, adoption)

And. . . would you say that couples who have passed the age of "production" should no longer be entitled to the "right of marriage?"

Or, would you say that every couple should take a fertility test to determine if they have the "right to marry?"

Grow up!

 

Honestly Sadanie, I think he is a very sad individual. As someone in his own age group, I have tried to talk sense to him in terms we both understand, but I suspect he is from a overly conservative and religious background. The fact that he has this bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy gay friend is no excuse. Most guys, including myself, have been hit on at some stage of our life, and it's no biggie. You just say you're not interested. But to embark upon this crusade against gays is not a reasonable response. I suspect something else is going on - perhaps some psychosis of which he is not properly aware.

I think we should just let this thread die.

 

you grow up and learn how to read lol.... no one is saying heterosexuals who are infertile or unable to have kids cant get married. nor is pro creation required for a marriage. marriage upholds the principle.

gays cant marry or reproduce. BY principle.

 

There are a variety of heterosexual couples who can't reproduce, BY principle, and yet they can still marry. You're just picking and choosing which conditions that make it physically impossible to reproduce to excuse and which not to. This is arbitrary on your part, not on "principle".

The significance of marriage extends well beyond the point of birth, both before and after, throughout the entire course of raising a child and beyond. You are cherry-picking the singular difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples, ignoring the fact that the same standard is not held against infertile heterosexuals, and also ignoring any significance that marriage laws play except for the one singular difference that makes the case for you.

 

by principle, every time a man and women get married there is potential for a child being born. its the ONLY way anyones ever been born. so BY PRINCIPLE children come from men + women marriages. because one is infertle or old doesnt change the facts that by principle all heterosexual marriages can result in pro creation while by princeable it is completely impossible for a homosexual couple to pro create.

 

Dear, I hate to burst your very young and immature bubble, but ANY TIME two heterosexual people have sex, there is a chance that they will procreate! It CERTAINLY doesn't take "marriage" to produce children!

But the fact is that "producing children" doesn't mean it is good for society, or that the children will be happy and their potential fulfilled. . .to RAISE children, it take two loving, committed people, married or not, heterosexual or homosexual. . .foster parents, adoptive parents. . .doesn't matter! What does matter is the love and the commitment to the child!

And it is obvious that heterosexual people DO NOT have the exclusivity on giving love and long term commitment to raising children.

 

You know what, little boy. . .your immaturity shows in everyone of your posts!

Did I say that heterosexual who are infertile or unable to have kids can't get married? NO I DIDN"T. . although your fascination of "heterosexual marriage is justified because of the ability to heterosexual MARRIED couples to procreate" would point to the MAIN purpose of marriage to procreate!

So. . make up your mind. . .and read my post again!

What I was saying is that IT DOESN'T take MARRIAGE to procreate!

But that "producing children" is only a very small part of what it means to be effective parents (and therefore to contribute to the future of society!). It is the RAISING of the children in happy, productive, young adults, able to fulfill their potential that MATTERS to society!'

Society doesn't need more "bodies" which will end up being abused in childhood or will become thieves or pshychopaths in their teenage or adult years. Society doesn't need any more children barely getting enough food to sustain growth and being looked at as "a burden on society" because they need welfare programs to BARELY survive!

What society need is more fully functioning, fully integrated, youths who have a chance to fulfill their potential BECAUSE they are being raised by a loving and committed family unit. . whether that family unit is "traditional" with one father and one mother, or less traditional with one parent and a step parent, or non-traditional with homosexual parents or adoptive parents, or foster parents. . . ALL that matters is the commitment to the child's best interest and to helping the child fulfill his potential.

Now. . .go and learn to read before you open your mouth and put your foot in it again through some ridiculous comment!

 

Thank you for that meaningful post. Most of us have been lucky to have been brought up by loving parents (or a single parent, as in my case) but there are millions of unwanted children born around the world. They suffer in so many ways, both physically and psychologically, and I know this opinion will bring the ire of many on this board upon my head - but I think it were better those children were aborted in the very early stages of pregnancy. The world is not short of human beings, and enough people suffer every day.

You are correct to say that bringing a child into this world is not an achievement, or even important as an act. It is caring for that child, providing for that child, and making that child feel wanted, loved, and important to you, that makes a good parent.

My mum once wrote me a letter when I was up at boarding school, and was questioning the existence of God. In it, she said she did not have the answers to the great questions of life, and I must come to my own decisions based upon logic and intellect. But, from her point of view, I was one of the main reasons she believed in God. I felt wanted and loved.

So it does not matter that my mum was a single mother (widowed when I was young,) nor had she been a lesbian, nor had it been a gay couple (male or female) who had adopted me. I was provided for, cared for, and felt loved - that is all that matters. And no one should bring a child into the world if they are not prepared to do likewise.

 

wow what an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) thing to say..... you know what. IMO you should have been aborted. there. how does that make you feel? i swear some of the most evil vile (*)(*)(*)(*) ive ever heard in my life. just because someone doesnt have as good of a life as you, that forfeits their right to live it? what is 'good' or 'bad' is subjective. poor kids in africa can be some of the HAPPIEST kids on earth. while youd want to go around and have them all KILLED before birth. you believe they dotn DESERVE a life. why dont you go and tell them that now? because you dont have the guts. and im sure those kids will disagree with you.

how dare you defile the name of God while trying to murder anyone whos life isnt as superficially or monetarily as good as yours.

 

False, old, post-menopausal, genetically disordered and otherwise disordered are categorically incapable of reproduction. You are pricking and choosing, and your point is moot anyway given that there's a lot more significance to marriage for the couple and children they raise than just how a child might be born into it. Marriage laws facilitate adoption, they facilitate artificial insemination and fertility treatments, it facilitates the nest-building and legal/financial necessities of cohabitation and mutual support. These laws are important and useful for any loving and committed couple, regardless of their ability to reproduce, and regardless of how (or even if) they end up raising children.

 

Exactly... it's amazing what people think is justified, strictly for heterosexual couples, just because they can procreate. So what? Popping out a child doesn't mean you will do a good job raising that child into a responsible, happy, productive adult. The world would probably be better off if many of those couples DIDN'T procreate, and yet any axe-murderer, psychopathic child molester has the legal right to marry - as long as it's to someone of the opposite sex. How does this justify anything? It doesn't, it's a smoke-screen.

The only goal that makes sense is to support the well-being of the couple and children they may have throughout the course of their life, regardless of how those children may have come under their care. The significance of marriage to support this end extends well before children come into the picture as the couple builds a nest and financial stability, and well after as the parents continue to support their children as they grow up. You and Sadanie are absolutely right... The question is not who reproduces, but who takes care and raises their children that come under their care as good parents... whether adopted, biological, artificially inseminated or what have you.

 

Strawman. Leo was talking about unwanted children. You're talking about children poor children, and putting words into his mouth about "deserving" life, etc.

Let me put it to you this way. I'm from Las Vegas, a town which used to be run by the mob. Talking to my grandparents, they had something interesting to say about this... they always felt safe. When the mob was in charge, there was no crime in las vegas... the mob would not tolerate any crime in their city, and they handled it swiftly... often with a bullet to the head or cement blocks taking you to the bottom of lake mead.

Although the mob running the town is ultimately understood as something bad on principle, you can still recognize the benefits that came from it. The same can be said about the abortion of unwanted children... is this morally wrong? Perhaps, but I'm not arguing that point. But even if it's wrong, you can still consider the benefits in it creates by having fewer unwanted, unloved, unsupported children born into the world. These benefits have been measured by reduced crime rates in the years following the legalization of abortion via Roe v Wade.

Anyway, this whole thing is beside the point... the POINT is the importance of children being wanted, loved and supported... not just being born. Being a good, married couple of parents is not just about popping out children, it's about being good responsable parents, and yet you are only focusing on the potential of procreation.

 

You came up with all of that...but can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that a child with two loving parents, of any gender, is a blessed child.

 

i agree.... however we have a different view on what are loving parents and whats best for the child. anyways gay adoption doesnt change anything. as of now parents looking to adopt vs kids up for adoption is 30 to 1. so adding gays in will only increase the # of parents. wanna know why? gays and straits alike only want to adopt young children/babies. most of which are adopted. so adding gay adoption only forced kids to go to a gay home when otherwise they would have gone to a strait home. why settle for less? kids lives are sacred and they deserve the best.

 

Except...you're only point against gays is "I don't like it."

Well tough luck bucko. You not liking it is in no way a detriment to gays.

Don't like it, move.

 

Be so kind as to quote the paragraph where I have recommended the forfeiture of the right to life for the poor. If you are unable, kindly apologise for your nonsensical rant. I am making allowances for you, because you are roughly a year younger than me, (and are currently exhibiting all the maturity of a not particularly bright 8 year old).

Oh, and kindly do us all the courtesy of learning to spell and punctuate correctly, I am tiring of trying to interpret the shambles which passes for your posts.

 

you just said its better for kids to be aborted because of their parents. what kind of garbage is that man?

i am making allowances for you since you appear to be more barbaric than i am.

 

Friends come and go.

 

Why do you insist in rewriting people's comments in a strange language that seems to be inspired from a totally different meaning that what is contained in the original comments?

Either you have a real problem with reading comprehension, or you have learned to 'spin" comments to meet your own warped beliefs!

There is NOTHING in your comments that relate to that of Leo 2!

 

Do you realize that prisoners with life sentences can get married? It happens- one of the more bizarre examples of marriage that I know of. When I compare that to the idea of two men or two women who love each other and want a life time of legally supported partnership I just can't see the argument.

Look kid- I have been married over 20 years. I have been watching marriages probably 3 times as long as you have been. There is nothing that I have seen that I believe makes me think that marriage between two men or two women who want to be married any more or less plausable than my own marriage.

But I understand that there are folks who have real issues with it. Especially with older people I get that this is a big paradigm change. I also think that you are different from the fundies who obsess over gays as if Jesus's message was 'hate the gays" instead of 'love thy neighbor'. I think you are young, you are inexperienced and I think you are just ignorant(from lack of life experiences).

I challenged you to think about how you would react if your child turned out to be gay. You refused to consider it. When you can- when you can really think through how you would deal with it, you will have begun to give this serious consideration.

I don't think there is really any purpose to continuing this discussion with you.

Good luck with your life. Hopefully there will be more love than hate in it.

 

You could have just as easily been a girl with a straight guy treating you that way. Being gay has nothing to do with it.

 

well i dont treat girls like that and i think its wrong that guys act like that to women.

 

One more time- it has nothing to do with being gay.

 

I gave the opinion that, in principle, it is better for a foetus to be aborted in early term, than for an unwanted child to be brought into the world.

I am also on record on these pages as expressing concern for the plight of the poor, the disparity of wealth in society, discrimination against people in respect of things over which they have no control, and recommending further systems of social justice - even at the cost of higher taxation.

It is not garbage, it is a concern for the suffering of innocents and those less fortunate than ourselves. That you have reached adulthood, and not yet developed a value system that encompasses such concerns, is unfortunate. I think I will let my fellow forum members decide upon which of us is the more barbaric.