Thread: Do you support gay people

"sigh:: Really, I think your brain is about as thick as a ton of bricks. First off, I never said that gay couples couldn't adopt. Just because I argue for a side of the discussion that seemed strangely inept to backup their statements "

Yea, sorry, i am pretty dense.

"I was just arguing, and I don't know how, in all that seeming common sense you appear to have, you can't realize that it might be the least bit weird for the kid to have two parents of the same sex"

Your not grasping this central concept: The kid will ONLY experience life with 2 gay parents, or atleast thats what i'm talking about, IE. adopting from babyhood.

It can't be weird for the kid if it doesn't experience anything else. Say a minority couple, adopt a caucasion child, the kid would be in a comparable situation.

"Sure, he'd get used to it and be sensitized to the issue of homophobia, and hopefully it'd make sure he'd never become a homophobe"

Of course he wouldn't become a homophobe! The analogy with racism still stands, any arguments provided against a gay couple adopting are no different to arguments against ethnic couples adopting.

"I still don't agree with it. This could cause trauma on the kid, when he sees everyone has a mommy and a daddy but he's the only one with two daddies, that's all I am saying"

Trauma? Why? So he'll ask why other people have a mum and a dad, and? Kids ask about a million differences between their own families and other families.

"Men were never meant to be together like that. Imagine the whole world turning gay, huh"

Meant to? Did you know there is a genetic basis for homosexuality? Did you know you get gay animals?

Nvoight says: "who would inherit a gay gene anyway ? That would mean gays would create offspring"

Which was indeed a puzzle, and solved, the reason being that in certain cicumstances the "gay gene" does not make you gay and has other effects; eg. greater social function, etc. As far as I'm aware the gene(s) do not "make" a person gay, but increase the likelyhood. There are no doubt other factors, like your birth testosterone level, and no doubt environment also comes into play.

") but I mean maybe that's one of the reasons because this is a sin, because then human kind might become exctint. "

..... yea because if everyone thought that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality obviously, everyone would become gay!.... or... not. Would you become gay, if you stopped thinking it was "wrong"?

Originally posted by Clyde
"I still don't agree with it. This could cause trauma on the kid, when he sees everyone has a mommy and a daddy but he's the only one with two daddies, that's all I am saying"

Trauma? Why? So he'll ask why other people have a mum and a dad, and? Kids ask about a million differences between their own families and other families.

"Men were never meant to be together like that. Imagine the whole world turning gay, huh"

Meant to? Did you know there is a genetic basis for homosexuality? Did you know you get gay animals?

Nvoight says: "who would inherit a gay gene anyway ? That would mean gays would create offspring"

Which was indeed a puzzle, and solved, the reason being that in certain cicumstances the "gay gene" does not make you gay and has other effects; eg. greater social function, etc. As far as I'm aware the gene(s) do not "make" a person gay, but increase the likelyhood. There are no doubt other factors, like your birth testosterone level, and no doubt environment also comes into play.

") but I mean maybe that's one of the reasons because this is a sin, because then human kind might become exctint. "

..... yea because if everyone thought that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality obviously, everyone would become gay!.... or... not. Would you become gay, if you stopped thinking it was "wrong"?

Seeing as you and I will never agree on this issue, I will stop arguing this now. Let me tell you something though, althought I don't agree with adoption for homosexuals like I've stated more than a couple of times before I must admit that sometimes this is better for a child than another alternative, so in this case I am forced to agree.

Originally posted by hermit
well i wouldnt prefer to date guys, that have no-brains or not interlectual !

its boring --- i wish i can describe better.

You referring to us?
You're saying you wouldn't date us?

Well, she'd date me becuase I'm just one sexy b*tch , but not you guys..you're all uglier than me .

Except maybe hillbillie...think Ross from friends. lmao....

>>I believe in Biology, others believe in religion.

Eh, I happen to believe in both. It's not just so black and white.

>>Yea, sorry, i am pretty dense

Ouch, you blew out professor frink's sarcasm meter.

>>Your not grasping this central concept: The kid will ONLY experience life with 2 gay parents, or atleast thats what i'm talking about, IE. adopting from babyhood.<<

I was grasping the central concept. I know that the kid wouldn't question anything when he was younger and it's all he knows, but when he finds out what homosexuality is (in his older years) it might......oh...I dunno.... ::throws up arms:: I dunno! You win! You b@stard, you've beaten me snseless with a blunt object and I can no longer find my original train of thought on the subject. Guess I'm better left arguing for the side I'm for, huh?

Originally posted by elchulo2002
Oh I never said that God Created gays to control population, or maybe I misunderstood you........I don't really think you're born gay, but then again that hasn't been proven. Also yes being homosexual is a sin in my religion, don't really know if it only refers to sex though.

Freaking GD makes us all fight by starting this thread j/k

Right, this is great "homosexuality is a sin in my religion, don't really know if it refers to sex though" - sigh, when was the last time you read the bible...? ::grabs the new testament off the shelf behind him::...Actually, here's a website that I found which really does a wonderful job: http://www3.sympatico.ca/ross.fraser/Richard5.htm

I'm paraphrasing here, but somehwere in there it mentions Romans 27-32. Read that entire passage really quickly and ask yourself if the description you see there matches any homoseual men you know? Great,now just click on that little link I gave you...good boy! Read on.
///edit:
Oops, but I forgot my original point here, which is that even though it seems that it's against my relgion (and is preched that way) I just thought for myself and formed opinions of my own on the matter, tied up pieces from the bible, cited areas where there could be misinterpretations in the bible, etc. I think I did all that because I was reading another debate on the topic of homosexuality and relgion, and I had to read it all for myself in the bible...then I just forumlated some ideas, thumbed through my bible, read some passages...then I thought up all my ideas and theories. Didn't take longer than 30 minutes

What do you think about this?

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I didn't read the whole article you showed me because as I gathered info while skimming it I noticed the writer was himself gay, so his argument might be one sided.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

affeminate=having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner;

Having some characteristic of a woman, as delicacy, luxuriousness, etc.; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; womanish;


I leave it up to you, you decide whether it's a sin or not.

Oops sorry forgot to site

(ROM 1:26-27 and 1 COR 6:9-11).

and COR 6:9-11

Originally posted by elchulo2002
... I noticed the writer was himself gay, so his argument might be one sided.

Not that I am nitpicking or anything but:

Since you are a christian, and arguing for the bible, then aren't your contentions then one-sided also?

I would think that a gay christian would have more of a right (not the word I want to use, but can't think of any other work at the moment) to argue the bible's views of homosexuality?

Just a though, not trying to start a big'ole argument.

Well maybe but I mean a gay Christian would tend to defend it more than a heterosexual would might just look into it and analyze it. Sorry short on time have to go now.

That's it I am not planning to argue this point anymore let it be known, at least not on this thread nope.......so in case I don't answer you know why.

>>Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind<<

Well either: 1)effeminate had a different meaning in those times (as many words did), which would make your definition worthless...or 2)It's a mis-translation. Think about it, we're supposed to have this all-compassionate God, but he hates people who ACT a certain way? Just because I man carries himself in a girlish manner he'd be bannished to hell? Something in there sounds flawed to me, you tell me what...