Two lesbians raised a baby, and THIS is who they got

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
this whole subject is exactly what i've been talking about.

WHY can't we just break off and create a utopian society free of all of this religious bullsh!t where we are allowed to advance as a species.

if THEY don't want to have gay marriage in THEIR society then them have their own society separate from us where they base their values upon their holy book.

lets weed out the close minded and start a new, forward thinking society which stands for all of the ideals that america was supposed to have been about. FREEDOM.

I hear Russia is hiring.

I don't believe a word that 19 year old was saying.He looked programed as a robot.

reply to post by ZIPMATT


If we did not allow gays in to shopping malls, then yes, I would assume they would want gay shopping malls.
If we did not allow gays in to college, then yes, I would assume they would want gay colleges.
If we did not allow gays in to hospitals, then yes, I would assume they would want gay hospitals.

Seeing as how we do not allow gays in to marriage, yes, I understand that they want gay marriage.

But I totally see your point. Reminds me of black people in the 1950's. I mean, $#it, we gave them their 'freedom,' what more do they want? The right to vote? The right to ride buses? The right to use public water fountains? The whole 'human rights' movement was just LOL RIDICULOUS! But, you know what they say, "You give a mouse a cookie..."
(/sarcasm)

oh

He'll either be a good spokesperson selling an ad, cult leader where women want to follow ( another Manson), I'd follow him. He's hot. Hopefully he's not taken by either sex. Or, a great lawyer.

I'm undecided.

Well said though.

Originally posted by eleven44
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

If we did not allow gays in to shopping malls, then yes, I would assume they would want gay shopping malls.
If we did not allow gays in to college, then yes, I would assume they would want gay colleges.
If we did not allow gays in to hospitals, then yes, I would assume they would want gay hospitals.

Seeing as how we do not allow gays in to marriage, yes, I understand that they want gay marriage.

But I totally see your point. Reminds me of black people in the 1950's. I mean, $#it, we gave them their 'freedom,' what more do they want? The right to vote? The right to ride buses? The right to use public water fountains? The whole 'human rights' movement was just LOL RIDICULOUS! But, you know what they say, "You give a mouse a cookie..."
(/sarcasm)

edit on 2-12-2011 by eleven44 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by eleven44 because: blahblahblah

apples and oranges..


sexual orientation is not equal to race


non white children do not typically come from white parents
homosexuals come from *gasp* hetero parents.

But we will go with what you are saying and assume it's like a race.

Gays should start their own country.

We should put all gays on one island and all lesbians on another. In fifty years we will come back to a nice thriving community full of young gays being born without oppression.

reply to post by yaluk


I really don't think it's apples and oranges.

Humans are humans and rights are rights.

Some humans are born differently than others. Just as some are born white, some are born black, and some are born gay.

I believe humans have the right to do what they want so long as it doesn't interfere (aka enter-fear) with the lives of others. I can understand how heterosexual people find homosexual activity 'disgusting.' Just as I understand how an ultra-rich/sheltered individual might find the ways that native aboriginals live to be 'disgusting.' But does that mean we get to tell them what they can and can't do?
Who's right?
Who can say?
You can say "homosexuality isn't natural because they can't reproduce children."
But what about hermaphrodites?
What about people who are born sterile?
What about homosexuality found in other animals? (en.wikipedia.org...)
Why would we expect it to not happen in humans? (Which also happen to be 'animals.')
Truth be told, I've never seen any other species of animals get so angry about what another one of their species is doing, so long as it doesn't INTERFERE with their own happiness.


And as far as putting gays on their own country....I'm sure you're being hyperbolic. But, seriously? How is that equivalent to...anything?
Do all whites live on one island?
Do all blacks live on another?
Red heads over here > and bald dudes over there < ????

We are humans. We are brother and sisters, neighbors and friends. We are a community. Considering we can't get past these very very basic agreements on how to get along without fighting/killing/judging one another in every aspects of our lives, is it really a surprise we're on the brink of exterminating our own species, all because "I was right." ???

reply to post by yaluk


Who's that minority in your avatar?

Your race, religion, sex, or sexuality should have zero impact in your relationship with the government. We are all humans and have the right to be treated equally.

Your views on race, religion, sex, or sexuality are your own and you have no right to enforce them on others, and others have no right to enforce them on you.

The individual will determine their own fate. It does not matter who you are raised by as long as you are smart enough to not be a brainwashed follower and think for yourself.

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by ZIPMATT

 

You don't seem to know or understand very much, do you?

You could teach yourself things or even make the effort to read other learned comments from this very thread but I guess you prefer not to.

At the very least, stay in school - for your own sake.

iTS a moot point , tricky to argue with . Mutual exclusivity is a dangerous thing . Minority groups often gain advantages and protection which the majority can only dream of .
At Sodom and Gomorrah , Lot was approached by the men of the town , all turned gay , and they wanted to rape the men which had turned up to destroy the city , unbeknownst to them , who were in Lot's house . The gay governemnt had gotten rid of anyone who would not be violated by them .
The quran puts it that children were also their victims . Both bible and quran versions of the story make it clear , that homosexuality is against natural intent , a perversion , which included choice . They also make it clear , that the behaviour demonstrated at Sodom and Gomorrah would NOT be tolerated . The clearest point of all , is that we dont get to a 'gay government' situation . Gay marriage , and gays raising children , is a step too far along that road .

Personally , I do NOT think that the pre-eminence of ones sexuality , should give ANYONE minority rights , IN ANY aspect of life , social, economic, or political. NOBODY .

Why should anyone be interested or support YOUR or ANYONE's sexual habits as a primary precursor to your treatment ? You are stepping up ? I am saying > back off .

reply to post by ZIPMATT


Dude, we wouldn't have to step up if people weren't all up in our business in the first place!

reply to post by Garfee


If it involves children , it is very much everybody's business . You want people not to look ? To turn away ? Not care what you're at with them ??? Children ? Because of your gay-sexuality ??? # me!
You have another thing coming, if you think that should happen , sorry about that you're not getting away with it !!

Enforcement to grow up fatherless or motherless , from a test tube ? On a baby? For 19 years or the rest of its life ?

On a basis of 'gay sexuality' being the basis , the basis , the basis , of the situation for the child / ren ??

The _ Children ????

No sir , too far , stop where you are . Its wrong , sounds wrong too , and its staying wrong . Hear that ?

reply to post by ZIPMATT


If my sister and her partner were killed and I were to care for my neice and nephew, would you consider me to be an unfit carer for them simply because I am gay?

Let me rephrase the question. Should the unthinkable happen as I wrote above, would you prefer my neice and nephew be cared for by me - a loving, caring, stable family member who adores them and with nothing but their best interests in mind - or that they go into foster care to a stranger's home, scared and frightened and separated not only from their only family but perhaps even eachother?

reply to post by Garfee


The precursor there is 'killed' , not 'gay' , so of course then that would be an acceptable solution , if the children accepted it .

Where however does a child have any choice , when the precursor is simply 'gay' ? It is wrong to attempt to procure a child from a test-tube and make the person live with it , simply for the fact that 'you' - its un natural parent , are (temporarily?) staying in a homosexual house with a homosexual person , and you 'want' a baby.

You dont 'need' a baby, no one does . You 'want' one . And damn you it will not be allowed .

You make a choice which doesnt allow babies . You can damn well stick with that choice

reply to post by ZIPMATT


You can damn me all you like, but it is already allowed.

Also, no child ever has a choice in the family they are in - ever.

reply to post by Garfee


A child forced into reduced choices will be a miserable child . Making unempowerment of children, including to seek and enjoy their own genetic heritage , from birth , is a wrongment unlivable with .

A wrongment enforced by a lack of the essentials for procreation . To any mind an alien concept , and at least one parent will certainly certainly not be the child's natural parent . But a gay parent who puts their sexuality first over the child's natual rights they will be . An 'impossible' parent . Wronging the child . Not acceptable