Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
136
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Helious
I am tolerant as possible by the way, but when it comes to children I believe that the world is a hard enough place to try and grow up these days without that added set of "circumstances".


Well my father was a cop and my mother a Jehovah's Witness. I got LOADS of crap from other kids. Are you saying that they, while heterosexual, shouldn't have had kids because of those "circumstances"?


No, I am saying it would have been even more difficult if your father was a cop and your other father was a Jehovah's Witness.




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Helious
I am tolerant as possible by the way, but when it comes to children I believe that the world is a hard enough place to try and grow up these days without that added set of "circumstances".


Well my father was a cop and my mother a Jehovah's Witness. I got LOADS of crap from other kids. Are you saying that they, while heterosexual, shouldn't have had kids because of those "circumstances"?


No, I am saying it would have been even more difficult if your father was a cop and your other father was a Jehovah's Witness.


Nice evasion but it won't play. You are saying that the parents being gay places a harder burden on children. I showed that kids have the same burden no matter what the parents sexual orientation is.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
"Gays or straight it doesn't really matter. As a long as you have two intelligent people who raise their children in THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN ........"

Does the best interest include the depiction or representation of the most common functional method of the procreation of human beings, i.e. a man and woman? Those concepts of "best interest" are incomplete when they exclude the most prevalent natural expression of our species, which is the union of a man and a woman.

to another poster...marriage should probably be an institution of the church and civil unions should be of the legal system, and be as inclusive as possible so as not to exclude any two people from expressing their love for each other, and should empower those couples with full legal rights and permissions and ensure the equality of treatment for the citizens who choose to participate in any partnership or union.

There has been so much wasted time fighting back and forth about a moot point. There is what is represented by the union of a man and woman, and there are other unions. These two groups are not meant to be conflicting but complimentary. They are unequal, different based on the factors that define them. In a hetero union there exists the biological possibility that procreation can occur. In a homosexual union there is no such possibilty. These facts indicate there is a difference between the two types of unions. Because there is a difference I think efforts have been deliberately futile, when it comes to attempts at equating these two unions.

Accepting our differences and working together in the spirit of equality is the direction these hot topics need to head in. Laws should establish, item for item all of the same facilities available to those in same sex unions as well as heterosexual unions. Laws should help ensure fair treatment of all couples and discrimination should be rooted out.

But I think actually the Gay marriage issue has been hijacked from within to ensure its failure by trying to claim that there is in fact equality in the circumstance of a gay union versus a hetero union. How are two different things the same thing? they are not, and claiming so has to date only served to polarize more strongly those on opposing sides of the issue, limiting the progress that can be made. The arguments as presented by the proponents of gay marriage, if they include the concept that there is equality betwen the two types of unions, will be therefore flawed, by the inclusion of such an illogical statement.

For Gay people to win their rights, they should fight logically. Calling the Apple an Orange weakens the case they try to make.

My two cents is....

There is NOTHING in all the universe, more special and sacred than than a man and a woman choosing to love each other and the beautiful miracle of life that can come forth from their marriage. If they maintain that loving environment, consistently, there is a good probability that offspring will be a benefit to society and future generations.

Secondly, there exists the same very real possibility that a homosexual couple, joined in a civil union, can rear and provide a beneficial environment to a child and have an equally beneficial member of society come forth from their home.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 





Nice evasion but it won't play. You are saying that the parents being gay places a harder burden on children. I showed that kids have the same burden no matter what the parents sexual orientation is.


I disagree, how have you shown that the burden is the same? I would argue that I showed that whatever burden there is has the potential to be larger because of same sex parenting.

How much grief kids get at school is one thing to consider but hardly the most important. There are many issues involving same sex parenting that can be confusing to children, this is hardly subjective, there just are. I have no doubt that two adults of the same sex CAN be loving parents too a child, I just don't think they SHOULD be.

Nature would tend to agree with me, after all, if everyone had two moms or two dads, you and I wouldn't be around to have this conversation.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Gay couples should not be raising children, should not be allowed to adopt and should not be foster parents. Many may not agree with those statements but I believe them to be true. Those who by nature can not couple and produce children naturally should not raise them together, it is that simple. I could go on about all the reasons why but there are too many too list and that is why nature doesn't allow for same sex pregnancy.


Oh please, indulge us. Can you list just 3 reasons? Your nature argument isn't working for me. We humans go against nature all the time. Cooking food isn't in nature, yet we do it. Wearing clothes isn't in nature, yet we do it. Farming/agriculture isn't in nature, yet we do it. Tall buildings of steel and glass aren't in nature, yet we build them. Just because two people can't physically have children, doesn't mean they can't raise them. We, as intelligent creatures, can decide this; we don't have to let nature decide. If we let nature decide everything, we'd be living like the animal kingdom, naked, eating raw meat and living in caves or trees. Is that how you live?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 





What if Ibelieved that intolerant people should not have marriages or kids -- and enough people agreed with me -- where would people who have your prejudices be then?


That's quite the hypothetical question, however, it lacks any practicability because enough people would never agree with you. It is human nature to be intolerant, it is not human nature to be gay.

I am tolerant as possible by the way, but when it comes to children I believe that the world is a hard enough place to try and grow up these days without that added set of "circumstances".




Its human nature to be intolerant?

I don't think so, intolerance is taught, nothing natural about it.



Its not human nature to be gay...

yet homosexuality is not a choice, thus making it a result of natural forces.

Also you cannot be "tolerant as possible" and then follow it with a "but".



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I have a gay friend and he's totally against gay couples adopting children. go figure



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Just because two people can't physically have children, doesn't mean they can't raise them.


Actually in this age of surrogate mothers and artificial insemination gay couple can indeed have kids that are theirs biologically. I get your point though.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Yeah, I meant as it happens in nature. Thanks



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


if he is not a victim of something, then why is he pleading, or protesting, or preaching.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Just my opinion... I wouldn't mind being raised by two moms but wouldn't want to be raised by two dads.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


I dont know where your hatred for gay people comes from, but you might need some therapy or something. If you dont agree with it, dont do it. good luck.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Wow. If there was ever more proof than him of the ridiculousness of not granting the same right of marriage (or civil union, or what have you) to gays, I don't what is.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 




Your nature argument isn't working for me.

I am sorry my nature argument does not work for you, I am afraid you will have to take it up with nature though, don't shoot the messenger and all that.




Cooking food isn't in nature, yet we do it. Wearing clothes isn't in nature, yet we do it. Farming/agriculture isn't in nature, yet we do it.

You are correct, none of those things are "in" nature, they are choices that humans make, just like the choice to be gay.




Just because two people can't physically have children, doesn't mean they can't raise them.

Your exactly right, what it does mean, is that they shouldn't raise them.




If we let nature decide everything, we'd be living like the animal kingdom, naked, eating raw meat and living in caves or trees. Is that how you live?

Given the current state of world affairs, it doesn't sound too bad. Perhaps we should of let nature decide, we may all be happier for it.




Can you list just 3 reasons?


Sure, here are a few but at the end of the day, it comes down to many factors, some subtle, some not so much.




Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado Springs think-tank, noted that the review documented that gays' children were also: 1) more apt to report sexual confusion; 2) more apt to be socially disturbed; 3) more apt to abuse substances; 4) less apt to get married; 5) more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships; and 6) more apt to have emotional difficulties.

SOURCE



edit on 1-12-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz

- Homosexuals cannot be satisfied with being different as they have chosen, as they find the biologically natural


So you are saying people choose their sexual preference? Okay, do me a favor. Write down the time in your life that you sat down and started weighing the pro's and con's of being gay vs. straight.

Tell us all how you came to your decision and why.... What's that? You didn't choose? You were born straight? No choice what so ever?

Guess what. It's the same way for gay people. NO ONE chooses sexual orientation.

Don't talk about biology when you clearly don't really know all that much about it.

You didn't sit down and choose to be straight. Gay people don't sit down and choose to be gay.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 




I already posted my reply on the first page but I have a confession. Now that I've replied this thread is now listed in my SUBSCRIBED THREADS list. Now every time somebody replies it jumps to the top of the list and every time it does for a split second my mind reads the thread's title as the following ...

"Two Lesbians walk into a bar..."



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well, IMO, this guy though he is intelligent, he is just another lesbian in a man's body.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Nature is just that. Nature. One doesn't choose it, it just is. One CAN act against their own nature though. THAT is the choice. That is why there are so many people that live a heterosexual life even though it is against what nature programmed them for. I could choose to act in a homosexual way, if the price was right. That wouldn't make me gay though, that would make me a whore.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   





Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado Springs think-tank, noted that the review documented that gays' children were also: 1) more apt to report sexual confusion; 2) more apt to be socially disturbed; 3) more apt to abuse substances; 4) less apt to get married; 5) more apt to have difficulty in attachment and loving relationships; and 6) more apt to have emotional difficulties.


Oh yeah, that's the religious right group. Independent research, my a**. They're not biased at all, are they.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eleven44
 

....and, some monkey raised a child in the jungle, and then they decided to call him Tarzan.

Who cares.






top topics



 
136
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join