It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

page: 8
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Yeah I see the horribleness of that and I definitely see the need for some sort of Civil Union that gives any group of people that want to give them to each other the rights to those things. To me, it just crosses a line when we start calling it marriage.




posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


Here's the big difference. Pedophilia, incest, poligamy etc. are all against the law and punishable by prison. Homosexuality is not.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Really I would say we are pretty much in agreement, though I am not sure where you pulled out all of that Indian spirit crap


There are always going to be exceptions like abuse, death, etc in parenting. However, the optimal situation for any child is to have two opposite sex parents that love them and each other, because men and women have different parenting strengths and weaknesses that are based primarily on gender and physiology.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


well, its working in Canada where were not all mean, self obsorbed bible-thumping bigots. But, not all Americans are like that, just the grapes



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I appreciate you giving me two for the price of one but it's the same experiment mentioned in both articles.

All they've done is create sperm/egg from different tissues. Big difference in creating sperm/eggs and fertilizing an egg. The part that mentions offspring being created used a male sperm they created from male bone marrow. They were able to fertilize eggs with them, but it doesn't ever say the eggs they fertilized were created from a male. They said they ONE DAY THINK IT MAY BE POSSIBLE.

Some important statements made in that article:

"“I think, in principle, it will be scientifically possible,” Prof Nayernia told New Scientist. " - Hmm, in principal and scientifically possible, I wonder what they mean by that.

and

“The presence of two X chromosomes is incompatible with this. Moreover they need genes from the Y chromosome to go through meiosis. So they are at least double-damned.”

You see what I mean by only seeing what you wanna see? All they did was create sperm/eggs and some how that proves that two same sex parents can create offspring? Sorry but these articles don't prove that cells from same sex parents can even fertilize an egg, much less produce a viable offspring. If you read the paragraph 5th from the bottom of the first article it states exactly that.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


They are against the law now. It does not mean they will be forever. It wasnt that long ago when homosexuality was both against the law and considered a form of mental illness. Not saying I think that was right. Just saying that laws can change.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kevin_X2
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


well, its working in Canada where were not all mean, self obsorbed bible-thumping bigots. But, not all Americans are like that, just the grapes


Dude, really! Enough of the Ad Hominem attacks! That type of debate never works, nor does it sway others to your way of thinking! Let's try to keep it civil! This coming from someone on your side of the aisle on this issue!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


The day that incest, pedophilia etc. become legal, I'll be calling Dr. Kevorkian, as all reason will have left the species. C'mon, do you really think those things will ever be legal??? It may be a tool in the debate bag, but in reality....

[edit on 29-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Thanks Jaxon!

Ok so just to be clear because I got off track a little bit with Kevin...

I do not think homosexuality and/or pedophillia and/or zoophillia and/or polygamy are the same or that one group somehow does the things of the other group just because they are part of one of the groups. If that makes sense.


So basically there are no greater percentage of people who engage in a homosexual lifestyle engaging in any of those other acts than there are heterosexuals.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
they are adopted children adopted by gay couples.I'm pretty sure gay people can't have kids.Probably a good reason behind that.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Honestly I do think that over time those things will become legal and though I am not blaming gay marriage or homosexuals in general for this, the very logic they use to change the laws for themselves will then allow the other groups to have a foothold to change the laws.

Seriously, I would like you to give me the reasoning on why homosexuals have a right to be married or for it to be legal.. not that I disagree but because I want to show you how easy it is for the other groups to latch on to that.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Syphon
 


You, and alot of the other people here, have some serious reading comprehension problems. Not being able to reproduce your species is not "natural". Can you show me any other species that doesn't reproduce itself, noooooooo.

Instead of addressing that you are claiming I'm saying the birth of a homosexual person is not natural. If that's the way you interrupted it, ok.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 

"Two Spirit Crap"
Two-Spirit Tradition

Gay Native Americans rediscover "Two Spirit" Identity

Gay Marriage Is As Traditional As Straight

A Two Spirit Wedding

Native American Tribes Allow Same Sex Marriage

Our ceremony was a mix between Chinese culture and Native American (Partner).


[edit on 29/6/09 by toochaos4u]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by toochaos4u
 


Thanks for the links. That is kind of wild stuff.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
You know it's funny how EVERY gay thread that ever comes up on ATS ends up being boiled down to if Gays should have the right to marry or if it's OK to be gay.

It's a very sad chain of events that I have followed over the past couple of days and I'm quite frankly shocked at some of the replies and rhetoric seen here.

First of all, if the US hadn't redefined marriage, then blacks still wouln't be able to do it, or interracial couples. If they hadn't redefined marriage then YOUR current president would never have been born.

Harsh reality isn't it?

As far as Marriage being a holy thing, I don't see it that way, not when 50% of them end up in divorce. I don't see the sacred part. I will however agree that Marriage is a religious thing and they may choose to do as they please.

However, we as citizens, tax paying, law abiding citizens, should have every right given to heterosexual couples when it comes to living together or civil unions. We really don't care what it's called, so long as we are afforded the same benefits.

As far as that opening the door to pedophilia and Polygamy, well that's a straw man's argument. Obviously homosexualy does not lead to either of those things, and doesn't effect anybody but the people involved.

If you are not gay, than this issue should not effect you at all. Why? Cause you're not gay, and what business is it of yours if two men or two women want to make a life together? Is that something for you to decide?

We live in exponential times folks, which means things are ever changing. The laws weren't mean to stay static, exept for your constitution, that should remain untouched, since it's nearly perfect if people use it correctly.

In any case, there is NO valid argument for allowing this sort of mis-treatment to continue, other than the draconian views of the people who run this place.

Edit To Add: Ohh and as far as not being able to reproduce being un-natural, do you all still want another 7 Billion idiots ont the planet? I didn't think so. If anything homosexuality becomes prevelant when there is over population, that's shown in nature in mostly all species.

And I'm sorry but I have 3 children, and they are MINE, as far as I am concerned, so yes, I did reproduce, I molded children into well behaved, respectable and accomplished human beings. Isn't that the point of having children?

~Keeper

[edit on 6/29/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




If they hadn't redefined marriage then YOUR current president would never have been born.


LMAO, I am not sure that would have been a bad thing given some of the "Change" he is bringing to us. Sorry couldnt resist.

They may have changed the law to allow for interracial marriage but that did not change the primary part, which is between 1 man and 1 woman.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




As far as that opening the door to pedophilia and Polygamy, well that's a straw man's argument. Obviously homosexualy does not lead to either of those things, and doesn't effect anybody but the people involved.

If you are not gay, than this issue should not effect you at all. Why? Cause you're not gay, and what business is it of yours if two men or two women want to make a life together? Is that something for you to decide?


Nobody said homosexuality leads people to become pedophiles or polygamists.

So I guess using your logic that it shouldnt bother us then you wouldnt be bothered by a polygamist, pedophillic, or zoophillic wedding. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
debates dont work when one side ignores the facts the other side is presenting in favor of a a conservative-regressive agenda.

also, debates dont work when assumptions are made about how things "should be" for a group of people. how things "should be" in the future. and how people "should" make their decisions. all based on the hearsay of one member of the board who shows up in every thread regarding homosexuality and turn it into an "anti-gay marriage multi-group bashing bigotry assault" for the sole reason that they cant comprehend political and social change.

In threads like this no rational conclusion can be drawn, only chaotic bickering until grapes goes to bed



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
Seriously, I would like you to give me the reasoning on why homosexuals have a right to be married or for it to be legal.. not that I disagree but because I want to show you how easy it is for the other groups to latch on to that.


I think that I clearly laid that out with the story I shared earlier, as well as my other postings. Equality, plain and simple. The right to the same legal protections afforded to heterosexuals. If it is legal for two people to cohabitate (pedophiles etc. do not fall into this category) then they should have the same rights as anyone else who cohabitate legally.

And you're welcome. Vicious debate is just an exercise in futility. It just closes minds more.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




As far as that opening the door to pedophilia and Polygamy, well that's a straw man's argument. Obviously homosexualy does not lead to either of those things, and doesn't effect anybody but the people involved.

If you are not gay, than this issue should not effect you at all. Why? Cause you're not gay, and what business is it of yours if two men or two women want to make a life together? Is that something for you to decide?



Nobody said homosexuality leads people to become pedophiles or polygamists.

So I guess using your logic that it shouldnt bother us then you wouldnt be bothered by a polygamist, pedophillic, or zoophillic wedding. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 29-6-2009 by grapesofraft]


hes saying, rather rationally and plainly, that what is socially acceptable to most should not be decided by someone who is simply hateful for the sake of being hateful, as it does not concern you.

and you did say homosexuality leads to pedophiles and polygamists. remember, gay marriage will lead to other changes for polygamists and pedophiles in the future? so, in the past, people should never have been alowed to mary in the first place as it might lead to other people falling in love in the future? you are both condemning the future and the past because of your blatant feverant hate for homosexuals



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join