Ad Showing 'Homosexual' Newborn Causes Stir in Italy

Wow! This thread has slipped WAYYYY off track.

That being the case, I suppose I should throw my off topic opinion into the mix.

As far as homosexuality and it's being "natural", being that the act of sex is MEANT for reproduction, I would have to say that it is NOT natural. But, since we humans tend to make sex all about the pleasure, homosexuals have as much right to get it how they want it as any of the rest of us do.

Homosexual couples having children, on the other hand, I must admit that I am opposed to for any number of reasons. Perhaps the most important one being that the child is likely to get harassed beyond all necessary extremes while in school. Kids are mean enough as it is, do they really need the "hey you got two daddies!!! you got two daddies!!! and no mommy!!!" crap? Sheesh, little kids pick on each other because of clothing and that's MINOR. Imagine what the homoparent punishment and jeers would be like.

My theory, be gay all you want. But, do NOT bring anyone else into YOUR choice. Even if you are capable of taking the criticisms and punishment that doesn't mean "your" children will be able to. I would say the same thing for anyone that would bring their children into any unnecessarily hard situation just to benefit themselves.


Jasn

dbates' quoted statistics are misleading and his statement is false

As for his arguments...

Originally posted by dbates
5% - 7% of the males account for 71% of all HIV infections in the U.S.? I'd say that anyone who wanted to make a case that the homosexual lifestyle is associated with AIDS has a good and valid point.

Here we have the interesting case of a forum moderator who doesn't read the sources he quotes, or does not understand them, or else knowingly posts false information with intent to mislead.

Earlier in the same post, he quoted from his (very authoritative) external source:

Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005.

Note that, despite what the Learned Moderator would have us believe, the statistics do not speak of 'all HIV infections in the US' but 'all HIV infections among males in the US'.

They show us that just under three-quarters of all HIV infections in males were among men who had sex with men ('men who have sex with men' is just a PC way of saying 'male homosexuals').

So what? Does anyone think that HIV infections among women are caused by men who have sex with men? How often do male homosexuals, HIV positive or otherwise, have sex with women?

Any idiot can see that HIV infections among women must be caused by men who have sex with women, not 'men who have sex with men'.

dbates's statistics merely show that more men aquired HIV from sex with other men than got it from women, dirty needles and other causes. Big deal.

It is common knowledge that:

1. homosexuals outnumber intravenous drug users by a huge margin
   
2. HIV transmission from a woman to man is more difficult, and much less frequent, than the other way around
   

* * *

Here, for those interested, is the truth, as stated by the same source quoted by the Moderator.

HIV infections up to 2005:

• infections among MWHSWM (including intravenous drug users in this category): 452,111
  
• all other infections: 425,533
  

So if you look at the entire history of HIV infections in the US since records started being kept, infections among male homosexuals outnumber other infections slightly -- by less than 10 percent, in fact.

But if you look at the more recent picture, the numbers tell a different tale:

• infections among MWHSWM (including intravenous drug users in this category): 19,248
  
• all other infections: 21,292
  

In other words, non-homosexuals are now being infected in larger numbers than homosexuals. This makes nonsense of dbates's claims.

* * *

dbates's statistics are tendentious and the statement he makes is false. Since it is against the T&C to knowingly post false statements and he is a moderator, we must accept that he did this inadvertently.

We are also entitled, I think, to see him acknowledge that fact on this thread and apologize for it. It is the least he can do in view of the aid and comfort he has inadvertently given to homophobia and bigotry by posting these statistics and statements.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by Astyanax]

OK after al that mess we've just rolled around in, i think we all accept that children specially babies should not be involved in such social issues. but the debate on the nature of gayness continues and thats not what this thread is about so end point here.

reply to post by Astyanax


That should have been "5% - 7% of the males account for 71% of all HIV male infections in the U.S.?" I didn't mean to imply that this included females too. I was speaking only of the male population. I can see how you misunderstood my point. Even with that note, it's still a wake-up call that such a small group accounts for nearly 70% of the HIV infections in males. My point is still valid.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005.

Note that, despite what the Learned Moderator would have us believe, the statistics do not speak of 'all HIV infections in the US' but 'all HIV infections among males in the US'.

Read also what it says carefully. It says men who have sex with men. It does NOT say homosexual men. What's the difference? People like Ted Haggard, Senator Craig, i.e. men on the down low who claim to be straight (and are for the most part) but still engage in homosexual acts. There are more than people want to admit.

Also, don't forget prisons where HIV runs rampant from rape. Should those statistics be lumped in with homosexuals? Because in the above quoted text, they are.

My point being: This statement is a little erroneous.

('men who have sex with men' is just a PC way of saying 'male homosexuals').

BTW, Dbates. Your argument doesn't still stand.

It's important to note that in all extremities that yes, there extremily debased homosexual men out there who do possess the capability to rape/otherwise sexually manipulate young children, be it male or female.

However, it is also true that there are heterosexual men whom are capable of the same thing.

I believe what is happening is that those members of society whom feel that the homosexual community is perverted are simply tarring all members of aforesaid community with the same brush - this in itself is ignorance to an extent.

It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong, it's why you feel it's right or wrong.

People these days seem all too ready to jump to conclusions, as if everyone's trying to be their own private sherlock holmes - turned - sociologist.

I have nothing wrong with that precisely of course, but there needs to be a greater scope of understanding of the individuals within society - Yes, there are sick people out there, but there are also those whom in latter day times would be the equivalent of saints.

Sherlock Holmes would know this, if he was real of course...

reply to post by SimiusDei


I think you are wrong. EVERY child deserves a home and adults who love them, no matter if those adults are gay or straight. My best friend who lived a lie of being straight his whole life, got married, had two children. Finally, he could not do it, got a divorce, was caring for his kids, when the mother went off the deep end.
Took her to court, got custody of his kids, and I have to say his boyfriend is a better mother to those children than their biological mom.
No, they don't call him mom, they call him Daddy (name).
Should those children have had to live in squalor and filth, because their father is gay? Should they have to go into foster care, and possibly be abused physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually, because their father is gay, and gay people should not be allowed to raise children??
You said it yourself, children are mean, they are cruel, and it doesn't matter, if they want to find something to pick on a kid, they WILL, if the kid doesn't have the right sneakers, the right name brands, whatever, so to get hung up on that one thing..
Those people who fight to deny homes to children in foster care because the potential adoptive parents agner me so much.
I want to say to them, how many adopted children do you have, (usually none), and that if they don't want gay people adopting children, then they need to make sure there are no children in the system to BE adopted.
And do you know what children most gay people are adopting?
They are adopting the children that no one wants, because the children are physically, or mentally disabled, OR the are black.
Yes, black.
It DISGUSTS me that there are white couple going out of their way to adopt Asia, European, and Latin children form other countries, and there are children here that need homes too.. but they are the wrong color..
And that just as there are agencies to facilitate the adoption of these foreign children, there are agencies that find homes for black AMERICAN children in other countries.. Because NO ONE here wants them.
But there are gay people willing to open their homes to HIV positive black children, raise them, love them support them, and there are people who DARE to say you cannot have this child??
WHAT??
It is a fundamental RIGHT of EVERY child to have adults who love them, and it doesn't matter if their parents are Adam and Steve or Stacy and Eve.
I watched my godchildren being torn apart, from going back and forth with their mom and dad, leaving his home clean and coming back dirty, and hungry and afraid. I have watched them blossom into the children they are supposed to be, because two gay men gave them the love they needed to beat back the demons of drug and alcohol abuse their mother visited upon them.
How DARE you sir?
How DARE you.
It is not sexuality that makes someone a fit parent. It is the capacity to love, care, and sacrifice for a tender precious life, and mold them into productive citizens who contribute to society.
That is what my god children are going to be, thanks to their GAY father, and his boyfriend.
Left with their straight mother, I anticipate that they would become less than productive members of society..

As for the usefulness of gays.. I once read somewhere about the mustering out of certain towns min Rome, or Greek in ancient times.
The gay men went out and fought first, then the straight men, the the gay women, then the straight women.. Perhaps that is the biological reasoning behind gays. Like the sterile bee, they give of themselves to the whole, and not to individual. That the gay person, having no children of their own would be willing to die for the children of the community.. So maybe it is more like that of the wolf, where only one pair breeds, but the others are willing to die for those pups.. It is just a thought as to why it is so wide spread and common. I believe I heard a number of 7% of the male population on average is gay.
But all of this is besides the point.
I said it before, I think that the ad way in poor taste, but the point was that people are BORN gay. They are not made gay.

Originally posted by FalseParadigm
reply to post by SimiusDei

 

I think you are wrong. EVERY child deserves a home

okay so how many children have you adopted Mr goodman

Finally, he could not do it, got a divorce, was caring for his kids, when the mother went off the deep end.

yeah i would too if i found out i've been living a lie like that

Should those children have had to live in squalor and filth, because their father is gay? Should they have to go into foster care, and possibly be abused physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually, because their father is gay, and gay people should not be allowed to raise children??

yeah but take a look at who is really responsible for that it not the mother he chose to have kids

And do you know what children most gay people are adopting?
They are adopting the children that no one wants, because the children are physically, or mentally disabled, OR the are black.
Yes, black.

you are gona have to back this up with some data bud

It DISGUSTS me that there are white couple going out of their way to adopt Asia, European, and Latin children form other countries, and there are children here that need homes too.. but they are the wrong color..
And that just as there are agencies to facilitate the adoption of these foreign children, there are agencies that find homes for black AMERICAN children in other countries.. Because NO ONE here wants them.

i agree with you on this one but whats it got to do with the main topic?

But there are gay people willing to open their homes to HIV positive black children, raise them, love them support them, and there are people who DARE to say you cannot have this child??
WHAT??

who are you talking aobut how about a list of people or some interviews you can post here
[quote[
It is a fundamental RIGHT of EVERY child to have adults who love them, and it doesn't matter if their parents are Adam and Steve or Stacy and Eve.

i'm playing phsychiatrist with this one: interesting choice of names

It is not sexuality that makes someone a fit parent. It is the capacity to love, care, and sacrifice for a tender precious life, and mold them into productive citizens who contribute to society.
That is what my god children are going to be, thanks to their GAY father, and his boyfriend.
Left with their straight mother, I anticipate that they would become less than productive members of society..

thats not necesarily true some kidws use their bad parents as examples of what not to be.

But all of this is besides the point.
I said it before, I think that the ad way in poor taste, but the point was that people are BORN gay. They are not made gay.

on that i agree al well

Still waiting

Originally posted by dbates
That should have been "5% - 7% of the males account for 71% of all HIV male infections in the U.S.?" I didn't mean to imply that this included females too. I was speaking only of the male population. I can see how you misunderstood my point. Even with that note, it's still a wake-up call that such a small group accounts for nearly 70% of the HIV infections in males. My point is still valid.

Your point is meaningless. I'm pleased you repeated it, so that this can be made absolutely clear.

• Men don't catch HIV from women very easily. This is a well-established feature of the epidemiology of Aids.
  
• That leaves male-to-male transmission and shared needles as the only significant alternative routes of infection.
  
• There are more homosexuals than injecting drug users in the world.
  

Given these facts, it is obvious that male-to-male transmission must be the primary source of HIV infection among males. It is neither remarkable nor significant. Men spread HIV. They give it to women and they give it to other men. How do you think most women are infected with it? By men. I did not misunderstand your point; you are misrepresenting it.

You are also, I am sure, very well aware that the high relative prevalence of HIV among homosexual North American and Western European males is a historical accident. In the world as a whole, HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexuals.

If you were not aware of this before, the statistics quoted in this thread by Griff should have made it clear to you.

Justifying the persecution of minorities by painting them as a danger to society is an ancient, ignoble tradition ('filthy Jews spread diseases'). I hope you feel comfortable with the historical company you are keeping.

Originally posted by Griff
Read also what it says carefully. It says men who have sex with men. It does NOT say homosexual men...

My point being: This statement is a little erroneous.

('men who have sex with men' is just a PC way of saying 'male homosexuals').

BTW, Dbates. Your argument doesn't still stand.

Indeed it does not.

Thanks for the correction, Griff. I was aware that men who have sex with other men need not be naturally-oriented homosexuals, and even the term 'MSM' is familiar to me from some documents on HIV and human trafficking which I recently had to edit. I was oversimplifying for clarity, as they say.

You are a brave and honest fighter in the cause of liberty, truth and justice. I salute you.

reply to post by Astyanax


Thanks for the kind words. I was just pointing out for clarity. Keep up the good fight. A salute goes out to you also.

Dude I bet that babies Grandpa is rolling over in his grave...look at what the hippies have done!!!!!

First, I was replying to Simius who stated that gay people should not be allowed to raise children. Are you agreeing with him? Other wise, what is your point.
Second, I am a woman, thank you.
Third, there are certain guidelines towards adoption. One is that you must own your own home. I do not. BUT I am working towards that, and when I DO, I WILL open my home to as many children that need love and support as I can. However, there are several children I care for, I don't have a legal duty, but when they come to my house, I feed them, I clothe them, I help them with their homework. No. These are not children I am paid to care for. They are neighborhood children who know they have found an adult who loves them, that they can trust.
Oh, and then there is my neighbors daughter, who she asks me to watch, and then disappears for a week or more. No she isn't on drugs, she just isn't ready to be a mother for this child, and I have been thinking about broaching the subject of her giving me guardianship of this child, (which is different from the adoption process). She calls me mommy too.
How many children have YOU adopted, may I ask? I may not yet have been able to do so legally, but I have opened my home to many children.. and lets not even get into all the "children" I have on the net.
They range in age from 11 to 17+. Some of them I have been their net aunt for years, with their parents knowledge and permission. One of my boys just went to college, and I am as proud of him as if he were really my kid, because I DO feel like I helped raise him.
Does that count?
You agree that he should have gotten a divorce when he realized that he could not go on living a straight life.

yeah but take a look at who is really responsible for that it not the mother he chose to have kids

I am not even sure what you are saying. But it could be because you were not sure what I was saying...
Should those children have had to live in squalor and filth, because their father is gay? The mother's standards of cleanliness were less than par when she started "partying" and the dirt just built up and up. Even when they were married, he was the one that did all the cleaning. So should they HAVE to live with their mother, who is a less than stellar example of motherhood, because the father is gay?
Should they have to go into foster care, and possibly be abused physically, mentally, emotionally, or sexually, because their father is gay, and gay people should not be allowed to raise children?
That was in response to SD, and his gay people should not be allowed to raise children comment. The question stands.. Should that happen to those children when they have a responsible parent well able to care for them, but he is gay?

I don't have to come up with any data, I use my eyes.
My friend who are gay who have adopted have OVERWHELMING adopted black children, MOST of whom are not perfect. They have HIV, they are developmentally delayed, they have cerebral palsy.. One couple adopted a boy with spinal bifida.
Then there are my straight friends who moan and groan over the paperwork to get their South American baby, or their little Chinese girl they have been working so hard for, or the best way to bribe Romanian officials so that it doesn't look like they are being bribed. And I ask them, why don't you get a black baby here, cause there are plenty of them, and I get the SAME exact response.
Oh, we want a child that fits with our family. Though one couple brought home an Ecuadorian daughter who is just as dark as a black child.. But wait, her hair is straight. Maybe that is it.
I don't blame them for what I perceive as their shallowness, but it hurts and angers me. They are my friend's and I love them, shallowness and all. And they love me, though I think they see me as being a bit militant when it comes to certain things, lol.
None of what I wrote had ANYTHING to do with the main topic, it was a rant in response to someone else's posting that gay people should not raise children, which is why it said in response to..
Maybe SD should be asked what did HIS post have to do with the topic of this thread.

But there are gay people willing to open their homes to HIV positive black children, raise them, love them support them, and there are people who DARE to say you cannot have this child??
WHAT??

who are you talking about how about a list of people or some interviews you can post here

I am again talking about what SD said, and like I am going to give a list of the names of my friends who have done just that, PLU-LEASE.
As to who said gays couldn't, there is a STRONG fundamental Christian movement fighting to disallow gay adoption. Listen to Focus on the Family, It comes up again and again. A few years ago, there was a fight in Ohio, (I believe) legislation about this very subject.
And it is the mind set of some that gay/lesbian couples should NOT be allowed to "taint" children with their lifestyle, forgetting that what children need most is love.

It is a fundamental RIGHT of EVERY child to have adults who love them, and it doesn't matter if their parents are Adam and Steve or Stacy and Eve.

i'm playing psychiatrist with this one: interesting choice of names

Unless you have the degree, DON'T. I picked those names because those are the names that pretty much EVERYONE uses when talking about the stereotypical gay/lesbian couple. Don't read anything more into it, the cigar is just a cigar.
And maybe some kids DO use their parents of what not to be, but that is only SOME, and when that is what your parents are, when that is what your friends parents are, the neighborhood you live in, your societal norms, THAT is what you become.
Ask a psychiatrist specializing in child development. I happen to have one on call.
It was not just the mother, it was the WHOLE environment the mother lived in including her family that would have made my godkids believe it was OK to be on welfare, collecting a check for 5 kids, or on the corner selling drugs. Because that was what the family was like, the neighborhood, everything that a child will use as their measuring stick.

But all of this is besides the point.
I said it before, I think that the ad way in poor taste, but the point was that people are BORN gay. They are not made gay.

on that i agree al well

See, we don't have to agree to agree!

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Wow! This thread has slipped WAYYYY off track.

That being the case, I suppose I should throw my off topic opinion into the mix.

As far as homosexuality and it's being "natural", being that the act of sex is MEANT for reproduction, I would have to say that it is NOT natural. But, since we humans tend to make sex all about the pleasure, homosexuals have as much right to get it how they want it as any of the rest of us do.

I think you would have to be an eternal optimist not to anticipate that any thread involving homosexuality on ATS wouldn't deteriorate to the level of straight=normal/natural/good and gay=abnormal/unnatural/bad.

And it's bit wearing to come to ATS and to see posts where contributors honestly consider guys like myself to be abnormal. There's nothing I can do about my sexuality ... not that I would want to ... because being gay is as normal to me as having the requisite number of fingers and toes. It's not some new phenomenon either - guys have been having sex with other guys for thousands of years. It's as normal for society to have gays as ever it was.

So let's just drop the whole homosexual=abnormal argument ? Had I started a thread saying that blacks or jews were abnormal I'd have been shot down in flames. And rightly too.

Let me share something with you. Homosexuality wasn't de-criminalised in Scotland until 1980. After that the powers that be decided that only guys over the age of 21 could have sex with another guy ("guy" in the singular - sex involving 3 or more guys remained totally verboten). I was 14 y/o in 1980 and already knew I was gay. And that it was "wrong". I didn't know any other gay guy. There was no gay community as such. I had my first "experience" at 15 and for the first six years of my active sexual life I was technically a criminal and doing "bad things" - that's what I thought, anyway. A criminal. That's a great start to a young life.

And it was all furtive too. The nod and the wink. Hanging around the most dubious locations in order to meet other guys the same as me. And it was risky too - the chances of getting attacked were extremely high if you were seen coming out of the "wrong club".

That's why the whole Gay Pride thing was to my generation so important. It wasn't to encourage straights to become gay or to corrupt the young. It was to basically say "this is who we are and we're not ashamed of ourselves any longer". Pride manifested itself not only in the annual parade in your local city centre, it helped with telephone helplines (no internet in those days), outreach services, sexual health advice etc.

But time passes. There are many guys now who look at Gay Pride events in a different light altogether. Like everything else Gay Pride has become very commercialised. And there are always some who delight in taking things to the extreme ... if anything their behaviour has turned people away from Pride and made folks less sympathetic to the reasons why Pride was ever established in the first place. And that's a real shame.

But please put yourself in the other guys shoes before you go around casually deciding what's normal and what isn't. And consider carefully how other readers might take what you're saying.

It can be incredibly hurtful to come to a forum like ATS - to read about conspiracies, UFO's, military matters and world events from a different viewpoint - only to see the same tired old prejudice from a generation ago.

[edit on 3/11/07 by Niall197]

I just still dont see how it could be seen as not abnormal being that when you have sex with a guy it is something that a gay couple had to come up with one man had to have sex with the other man in the ass not by nature but through curiosity wich was also abnormal as for hetero sex wich had to be geneticaly passed down to us to have sex with a women in the vagina in order to make a baby.Anal sex is completly diffrent thing it is pretty much masturbation using another mans ass it is the fact your mindstate is not compatiable with nature and in my opinion is a uneccesary risk taken by yourself becuase sex is always a option and just like all other people who have gay feeling or hidden sexual preffrences thay put their selfish wants behind them and go with the flow of how nature works.Also if you do not engage in homosexual acts of sex in any sort and just label yourselfs gay becuase you enjoy onley the company of a man then you are not you are onley trying to be something or predefining yourself which shows it is a choice for at least some

reply to post by SimiusDei


SimiusDei: I wholeheartedly agree. I myself, am straight. But I do have some gay friends. That said, I agree that this is going too far. How could anyone possibly know what a baby's sexual preference is or even will be? I highly doubt that anywhere in our lifetime we'll even find a "straight" or "gay" gene that can give a definative answer to that question either. We are not a Gattaca society. Yet, lol. To hit on the same idea that you put forth, I've often wondered how incensed the gay population would be if we started having "straight parades." (It'd be a great way to meet some ladies, right?)

Read the thread, for heaven's sake

Originally posted by jwbmore
I just still dont see how it could be seen as not abnormal... Anal sex is completly diffrent thing it is pretty much masturbation using another mans ass...

Originally posted by Area_X
I myself, am straight. But I do have some gay friends...

Read the thread before you post, for heaven's sake. Then your posts wouldn't seem quite so bigoted and ignorant.

And as for this, jwbmore...

sex is always a option

...it suggests that you're bisexual. Have you considered the possibility? Your fear of it could well account for your confusion and anxiety on this subject.

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
How about just keeping your sexual lifestyle to yourself and not forcing it on other people.

Yes, I really wish the "straights" would quit trying to force THEIR sexual orientation on gays and lesbians. Just let them be.

Originally posted by Throbber
I believe it's a hint on how people are supposed to be born gay/straight, and that it's caused by a chemical imbalance or something like that.

Which is utter b/s, if you ask me - i believe it's more down to how the child is raised than his nuero-chemistry.

I disagreee, following your line of thinking, then really hot women could over time turn a gay man straight?...No, although in dating circles, alot of women try to do just that.

Look back in time when it was not socially acceptable, but gays existed in silence/secret, so how could it be upbringing/environment? Science has proven that just like those born as both male/female (hermaphrodites) the BRAIN ultimately decides what sex a person is, any attempt to change t hat externally lead to emotional conflict.

That's why I feel that people should be allowed to be who they are, not what we want them to be! Now, don't take that out of context, just because there's plenty of room to do that, my point is focused on the topic at hand.