Presbyterian Church (USA) Amends Constitution to Allow Gay Marriage

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You and much of the western world call it pseudo-science, but it can be found in eastern philosophy dating back to antiquity.

I beg to differ with you. An individual that does not know their creator is void of the love that comes from knowing their creator. This love makes them a better human being, a good parent is just one shade of that good human being.

a reply to: chadderson

lesbian
noun
: a woman who is sexually attracted to other women : a female homosexual

HOMOSEXUAL

1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Now then, let's start with the easy question. Please explain to me why a lesbian can't be impregnated.

a reply to: windword

Why would i explain to you why a lesbian cannot be impregnated, when both you and I have established that it can happen. We both already know homosexuals have functional sex organs. Are you forgetting, just upset, or being cynical?

A homosexual by nature, is not attracted to a mate that would permit pregnancy. Now, how does pregnancy happen then? It happens when either:

A) Homosexual subject decides they want children, finds a person of the opposite sex and conceives.

B) Homosexual subject decides they want children, goes to a doctor and has technology conceive for them.


Are you still following? We have reached this part many times but it seems to be forgotten on your end after a few posts. Stick with me now..

Both A and B are scenarios in which homosexuals are making the choice to create children. Both A and B are scenarios in which the child is hurt.

Conceiving in love is another subject that has been discussed in this thread. Since I know you have not read all of the posts based on your patterns, I will fill you in now, keep it all in one post for ya.

The only way a child can be conceived in love is by having a male and female parent. The only way a child can be conceived in love is if the male and female parent are actually in love. So half of all male/female pregnancies, by law of creation, have the potential to be conceived in love. Whereas, zero pregnancies belogning to male/male or female/female relationships can provide the child with a veil of love at the moment of conception.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Annee

This young woman went so far as to send a letter of support to Dolce & Gabanna AGREEING with their stance that homosexual couples should not raise kids.

This young woman's argument is that she NEEDED a father but was deprived of it by having two females for parents. She is yearning for the MALE influence. This is innate for every child, they need a FEMALE and MALE influence raising them for optimal growth.

I was in the same situation with a mother and grandmother. The lack of a father has nothing to with her having two moms.

It has to do with a father that chose not to be a father. I know. And I know the difference.

Anyone using this spoiled brat whiner as a legitimate argument against having two moms is a desperate idiot.

a reply to: Annee

Based on the negativity and hate in your post, it makes it hard to find your stance credible.

Why call people a "spoiled brat" and an "idiot".

Frustration comes out of misunderstanding. Can you see the big picture?

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Annee

Based on the negativity and hate in your post, it makes it hard to find your stance credible.

Why call people a "spoiled brat" and an "idiot".

Frustration comes out of misunderstanding. Can you see the big picture?

There is no hate. Just reality.

The woman has a dad issue --- not moms issue.

Only the desperate that need "anything" to validate their anti-same sex parents will not see it for what it really is.

originally posted by: chadderson
You and much of the western world call it pseudo-science, but it can be found in eastern philosophy dating back to antiquity.

Most of what you have posted as your foundation for being opposed to gays having children is psuedo-scientific.

I beg to differ with you. An individual that does not know their creator is void of the love that comes from knowing their creator. This love makes them a better human being, a good parent is just one shade of that good human being.

I see. So my friends who happen to be atheist, and would give me the shirt off their backs, are devoid of love becasue they do not believe in God? Sure.

a reply to: Annee

You are calling people negative names, that is hateful. It is extraneous information that does not contribute to our goal of finding an understanding, why say it in the first place?

She had a dad issue but you seem to be missing the core concept of the issue. The fact that she needed a male/female influence and not a female/female influence was what she is arguing about.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nobody is devoid of love my friend. Even your athiest friends have love within them. Those who are closer to their creator are just filled with more of it.

a reply to: chadderson

You just stated that people who 'know their creator' are better parents. I have spent plenty of time with their two daughters who have turned out to be grown children that most people would be highly envious of based on their compassion and achievements.

Both of them help me at the local soup kitchen (which is in a church) and neither has ever had any issue with where it is located, who the patrons are and what background they mutually come from.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is wonderful to hear! Good people come in all shapes and sizes whether they know their creator or not. Just because one walks through life without knowing god up to a certain point, does not make them a bad person before they knew their creator. It just makes them a better person from that moment forward.

I am not saying those girls are bad. I am saying they could grow and become even more compassionate/influential people.

originally posted by: chadderson
It just makes them a better person from that moment forward.

That is strictly your opinion which you are obviously entitled to.

a reply to: chadderson

Whereas, zero pregnancies belogning to male/male or female/female relationships can provide the child with a veil of love at the moment of conception.

You mean at the moment of male orgasm. Pregnancy can occur up to 10 days after intercourse.
SCIENCE!
Who knows what mood the woman may be in when the sperm actually meets the egg, little less what stress may be experiences when morning sickness and "baby daddy" cursing begins!

Both A and B are scenarios in which homosexuals are making the choice to create children. Both A and B are scenarios in which the child is hurt.

SAYS YOU! There is no evidence to back that up, other than your opinion!

Homosexuals have married, had relationships and have parented children for generations in the past. It happens all the time! Gays and lesbians trying to act normal! Less now, now that homosexuality is more accepted. A few decades ago, though, all homosexuals either married the opposite sex or didn't marry at all and suffered criticism and rumors.

Just because 2 people are incapable of procreating together, is no reason to deny them the right to procreate or to adopt children as a committed married couple.

Conceiving in love is another subject that has been discussed in this thread.

Yes. I understand your unrealistic and idealized argument. You have established your opinion about the "veil of love", the commitment to the creator and all.... I don't buy it! There wasn't "a veil of love" in arranged marriages, the biblical norm, as I have argued. But, you answered that the brides of forced marriages had "faith", and their "faith" was the "veil of love". I don't buy it! You're moving the goal post!

a reply to: chadderson

They are not truly homosexual if they are having kids.

That makes zero sense.

They would not be having sex with the opposite sex if they were homosexual. Do you understand?

Actually plenty of gay people have had sex with heterosexuals before 'coming out'. Sometimes resulting in babies. That's a fact. Perhaps they were always bisexual?

Either way artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are options utilized by gay people and those result in babies.

Homosexuals have functional sex organs just like heterosexuals, this is known but does not refute what I am saying.

Yes it does.

You said homosexuals cannot have children because if they have children then they are not truly homosexual.

Yet homosexuals with their functioning sex organs [as you just acknowledged] are able to produce children.

You don't like that gay people have children. That much is obvious. That's not good reasoning for your argument.

it is still not fair to the child to be conceived in test tube.

A woman getting pregnant via In Vitro Fertilization isn't different than getting knocked up by a dude. End result is she is pregnant. What's fair for the child is being loved and raised well during and after the pregnancy. Homosexual parents are capable of that.

a reply to: chadderson

This young woman's argument is that she NEEDED a father but was deprived of it by having two females for parents.

She wasn't deprived of it because of her gay parents. She herself said her father wasn't a great guy and he never came around. Sounds like he was the absent father type regardless. Additionally she made it clear her gay parents loved her and they were good parents. 'NEEDING' her father doesn't negate that...

a reply to: chadderson

She is yearning for the MALE influence. This is innate for every child, they need a FEMALE and MALE influence raising them for optimal growth.

...and yet I know better. As I mentioned earlier by very close friend was raised by two mothers. He was raised well. He was loved. He loves his parents. He's a successful healthy person. He takes no qualm with how he was raised. There are other people who can attest to this. Even here on ATS we have same-sex parents. Pay attention.

a reply to: windword

Today one of our fellow ATS friends has posted something in regards to cymatics. This is the same way love affects or defects the human body. This is why true love is important. There is no absolute right or wrong, but there is always a 'better' or 'worse' way of doing things. So since this is not "science", is it completely and entirely invalid? Do the subtle truths strike any chords within you?

EDIT: Here is the link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: chadderson

I'm very familiar with the science of vibrations, or "cymatics". I do believe in a certain amount of mind over matter, but it's not really a realistic model for everyday life. I think, for the most part, the cosmic vibrations that shape our reality are out of our immediate control.


Originally posted by BlueMule