Suicide bomb gang guilty of plotting 'worst ever terror attack in Britain'

[Phil H]

Since when is being gay or lesbian (or trans-gender) a life-style CHOICE?

Is being black, Hispanic, Asian, black haired or blue eyed - a choice?

Is being a woman a choice?

Where is the difference?

Your reasoning pleae.

Phil

[Errata]

Im against gays adopting because it has yet to be determined what kind of affect being brought up by two gay men has on a child. I dont wish a group of children to be used as a social experiment by state adoption agencies.

No, im for heterosexual couples being given fertility treatment on my money. Infertility is no fault to the couple involved. It is not a lifestyle choice that has made them infertile. Gays and lesbians by there own lifestyle choices are infertile. The sexuality of both in the relationship has discriminated against there child bearing abilities. Im not willing to pay for nature discriminating against a gay couple.

Despite what the vast arrays of parenting magazines tell us, kids are pretty resilient. And change is far more traumatic than consistency. Even something consistently bad, oddly enough. Moving and changing schools at the age of 14 is more traumatic to a child than having two gay parents. Because as it happens, kids have had gay parents for a long time now. Probably since the dawn of ever, certainly by the 1700s. My dad grew up with a kid with gay parents, and he is 71. So at this point it is safe to say the experiment is over. I would have MUCH rather had two moms than a mom and a dad who was a gynecologist. I promise you that was far more embarrassing to me. And my friend Zach got teased exactly twice for having two dads, and both time he retaliated with vivid imagery of his tormenter's parents engaged in graphic and unusual (but heterosexual) sex acts that both time he reduced the other kid to tears. As it happens, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you don't want to think about them having sex. Of any kind.

So really the question is is society's prejudice against gay couples going to harm the child more than other kids? And yeah. Probably. The first significant generation of mixed race kids in the US had a hard time. Should we have sterilized mixed race couples? Because remember that about half of gay couples use a surrogate. Honestly, if you can't imagine telling a mixed race couple that they shouldn't raise kids, the only argument that gay couples can't raise kids is pure prejudice. We know that the lack of a second sex in the home is not deleterious to child development. There have been single parents since the dawn of time. We don't take their kids away. Nor do we keep single men and women from adopting. That's been going on for 50 years now.

A kid needs to feel safe, encouraged, empowered, and independent to be successful. Technically they don't even need to be loved, but since the need is positive regard, we'll just say they do need it. Gay couples can provide all of these easily. One of the worst things that can happen to a kid is to have a perfect childhood with no adversity. That's why privileged teenagers are so dramatic by the way. They are literally creating challenges that they can overcome. Kids with real problems don't bitch nearly as much. So the adversity of a prejudiced society doesn't feel good, but it typically has very positive results later in life. The people I know with gay parents are absolutely the most compassionate people I know. Like live in small African villages for a couple of years and teach poor women how to make candles and soap kind of compassionate. I grew up in a privileged and well educated community, and these kids went to Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Beloit, etc. They had options. No one else I know have made those choices. They kind of are better human beings than the rest of us with straight parents. And if it's having gay parents that made them such passionate world citizens, that's really an argument for more gay parents.

But male gynecologists really need to stop having kids. At least daughters.

[jason_c]

Since when is being gay or lesbian (or trans-gender) a life-style CHOICE?

Is being black, Hispanic, Asian, black haired or blue eyed - a choice?

Is being a woman a choice?

Where is the difference?

Your reasoning pleae.

Phil

Its a choice ever since individuals have changed there sexual preferences during a lifetime. It happens quite a lot. I know of a few instances in my own circle of friends. With those who are gay throughout there lives well that is tough luck in terms of having children. Nature has handed them that card. Nature is discriminating against them both in terms of reproduction.

And of course a transgender lifestyle is mostly a choice. People having a sex change have made a decision to change sex. There feelings may have lead them to such a decision, but their lifestyle choices to these feelings is their decision alone.

[Phil H]

Its a choice ever since individuals have changed there sexual preferences during a lifetime. It happens quite a lot. I know of a few instances in my own circle of friends. With those who are gay throughout there lives well that is tough luck in terms of having children. Nature has handed them that card. Nature is discriminating against them both in terms of reproduction.

And of course a transgender lifestyle is mostly a choice. People having a sex change have made a decision to change sex. There feelings may have lead them to such a decision, but their lifestyle choices to these feelings is their decision alone.

I really think you should get out more jason!!

Its a choice ever since individuals have changed there sexual preferences during a lifetime.

I can assure you that most gay people know their sexuality from a very early age (around six in my case). On the other hand society (in the UK) for many years made it very difficult to be honest and open about that. So as society has releaxed somewhat people do "come out" - but that is, IMHO, rarely a "choice" - its rather admitting something that has been known for ever.

I'l agree that there is MUCH more bi-sexuality around that most people admit - then a "choice" might have to be made later in life. But that's a rather different matter.

On transgender issues - do you even know what you are talking about? This is not a question of cross-dressing, this is about people BORN in the wrong body for their sexuality. A good example would be the British writer and historian Jan (originally James) Morris.

With those who are gay throughout there lives well that is tough luck in terms of having children. Nature has handed them that card.

Frankly, I find that rather callous. Do your strictures apply to hetero couples unable to have children? Do you assert that ALL IVF treatment should be banned on the same basis. Nature?

Nature is discriminating against them both in terms of reproduction.

So do you argue the same approach to those with disabilities - those born without limbs, or with some congenital conditions? Paraplegics - Oscar Pistorius and others with their "springs"? Since nature had discriminated against them should they not (on the basis you argue) be barred from competing with "healthy" people - Pistorius compted in both Olympics last year you may recall? What about those who have sporting injuries and become wheel-chair bound - is that a choice (since the injury arose from something they CHOSE to do?)

What you have said so far appears to me that your last post reflects eitherr woeful ignorance or deep prejudice (perhaps so deep it is not recognised as such). I hope your response dispells that impression and reveals somewhat greater compassion for your fellow humans.

Incidentally, how would you respond if your 18 year old son or daughter cam to you and told you they were gay? Just asking.

[jason_c]

Its a choice ever since individuals have changed there sexual preferences during a lifetime. It happens quite a lot. I know of a few instances in my own circle of friends. With those who are gay throughout there lives well that is tough luck in terms of having children. Nature has handed them that card. Nature is discriminating against them both in terms of reproduction.

And of course a transgender lifestyle is mostly a choice. People having a sex change have made a decision to change sex. There feelings may have lead them to such a decision, but their lifestyle choices to these feelings is their decision alone.

I really think you should get out more jason!!

Its a choice ever since individuals have changed there sexual preferences during a lifetime.

I can assure you that most gay people know their sexuality from a very early age (around six in my case). On the other hand society (in the UK) for many years made it very difficult to be honest and open about that. So as society has releaxed somewhat people do "come out" - but that is, IMHO, rarely a "choice" - its rather admitting something that has been known for ever.

I'l agree that there is MUCH more bi-sexuality around that most people admit - then a "choice" might have to be made later in life. But that's a rather different matter.

On transgender issues - do you even know what you are talking about? This is not a question of cross-dressing, this is about people BORN in the wrong body for their sexuality. A good example would be the British writer and historian Jan (originally James) Morris.

With those who are gay throughout there lives well that is tough luck in terms of having children. Nature has handed them that card.

Frankly, I find that rather callous. Do your strictures apply to hetero couples unable to have children? Do you assert that ALL IVF treatment should be banned on the same basis. Nature?

Nature is discriminating against them both in terms of reproduction.

So do you argue the same approach to those with disabilities - those born without limbs, or with some congenital conditions? Paraplegics - Oscar Pistorius and others with their "springs"? Since nature had discriminated against them should they not (on the basis you argue) be barred from competing with "healthy" people - Pistorius compted in both Olympics last year you may recall? What about those who have sporting injuries and become wheel-chair bound - is that a choice (since the injury arose from something they CHOSE to do?)

What you have said so far appears to me that your last post reflects eitherr woeful ignorance or deep prejudice (perhaps so deep it is not recognised as such). I hope your response dispells that impression and reveals somewhat greater compassion for your fellow humans.

Incidentally, how would you respond if your 18 year old son or daughter cam to you and told you they were gay? Just asking.

I realize we've went way off topic and this shall be my last post on the topic.

A few posts earlier you quite legitimately questioned whether people with unhealthy lifestyles should be given medical treatment. The question itself can viewed as callous. The subject is all about rationing state funded healthcare. I believe having children is important but its not a "right". Thats why im against funding it at my own expense. The situation for heterosexual couples is slightly different. In heterosexual case its usually one partner who needs treatment. His/her inability to procreate affects the partner. However, if gay couples wish to fund treatment themselves then I have no problem with it.

Disabled athletes are discriminated against. They by-and-large do not compete against able bodied athletes. However, if the did compete with the able bodied then its no business of mine; im not required to pay for their competition through my own taxes. This is at elite level of course. I am all for enabling disabled on a day to day basis to live fulfilling lives. I suspect we do more good partnering with charities to fund wheelchair basketball than we do funding fertility treatment for lesbians.

As for your last point, no, I dont think I would have much of a problem with it. It would take a bit of getting used to it but I would not shun them. Neither would I be expecting grandchildren anytime soon from them.

[Phil H]

I'm pleased that that is your last post on this subject, jason.

As to:

A few posts earlier you quite legitimately questioned whether people with unhealthy lifestyles should be given medical treatment. The question itself can viewed as callous.

Have you never heard of RHETORICAL questions/or irony?

Good bye

Phil

[Ally]

Im against gays adopting because it has yet to be determined what kind of affect being brought up by two gay men has on a child. I dont wish a group of children to be used as a social experiment by state adoption agencies.

No, im for heterosexual couples being given fertility treatment on my money. Infertility is no fault to the couple involved. It is not a lifestyle choice that has made them infertile. Gays and lesbians by there own lifestyle choices are infertile. The sexuality of both in the relationship has discriminated against there child bearing abilities. Im not willing to pay for nature discriminating against a gay couple.

LOL... interesting. So despite research that has basically proven that being gay is not a choice, you disregard all those studies but are holding out because there are no studies that determine what effect being brought up by "two gay men" would do to a child. I find your cherry picking of studies indicative of the fact that you are in fact a homophobe.

So interesting where your concept of "natural selection" comes into your ideology. How about this one - if a straight couple can't get pregnant by nature discriminating against them, maybe that's a clue that they shouldn't be producing offspring! And by the way, there's no sociological experiment. Straight couples are just as capable of screwing up their offspring as gay couples. Take a look back at the last 3000 years of history for your "study".

But anyway, the question is answered. Yes you are a homophobe.

[Errata]

LOL... interesting. So despite research that has basically proven that being gay is not a choice, you disregard all those studies but are holding out because there are no studies that determine what effect being brought up by "two gay men" would do to a child. I find your cherry picking of studies indicative of the fact that you are in fact a homophobe.

So interesting where your concept of "natural selection" comes into your ideology. How about this one - if a straight couple can't get pregnant by nature discriminating against them, maybe that's a clue that they shouldn't be producing offspring! And by the way, there's no sociological experiment. Straight couples are just as capable of screwing up their offspring as gay couples. Take a look back at the last 3000 years of history for your "study".

But anyway, the question is answered. Yes you are a homophobe.

It sort of smacks of eugenics in a way. If a homosexual's natural inclination bar them from child rearing, does someone's heterosexual natural inclination obligate them to have children? And as someone with a "hostile uterus", am I barred from methods that would allow me to reproduce because nature has barred me from conceiving naturally? Do we have the right to dispense erectile dysfunction medication? Men in their 70s can still fertilize women in many cases. If nature has taken them out of the gene pool by impotence, who are we to interfere? Am I still allowed to use birth control?

[Ally]

Pretty much. I find the "well there's no study to determine the effects of being raised by gay people" to be pretty much a disingenuous, on the border of outright dishonest, argument. How does one have a study if one is prevented from doing the exact thing that would need to be done to have the study. So gays can't adopt because there's no study, but there can't be a study because gays can't adopt. A nice way of never moving forward.

On the other hand, there was no study on what the long term effects of having genetically engineered test tube babies were either, but that didn't stop everyone from going merrily forward with it, with little to no consideration to the effects of making freezer babies.

Hypocritical just a tad? You betcha.

[jason_c]

It sort of smacks of eugenics in a way. If a homosexual's natural inclination bar them from child rearing, does someone's heterosexual natural inclination obligate them to have children? And as someone with a "hostile uterus", am I barred from methods that would allow me to reproduce because nature has barred me from conceiving naturally? Do we have the right to dispense erectile dysfunction medication? Men in their 70s can still fertilize women in many cases. If nature has taken them out of the gene pool by impotence, who are we to interfere? Am I still allowed to use birth control?

This only only partly what I was getting at. Your private medical treatment is absolutely none of my business. Your treatment on the NHS however is my business. Just as it will be your business if fertility treatment to gay couples happens via Obamacare.

[jason_c]

Pretty much. I find the "well there's no study to determine the effects of being raised by gay people" to be pretty much a disingenuous, on the border of outright dishonest, argument. How does one have a study if one is prevented from doing the exact thing that would need to be done to have the study. So gays can't adopt because there's no study, but there can't be a study because gays can't adopt. A nice way of never moving forward.

On the other hand, there was no study on what the long term effects of having genetically engineered test tube babies were either, but that didn't stop everyone from going merrily forward with it, with little to no consideration to the effects of making freezer babies.

Hypocritical just a tad? You betcha.

Errata

"Because as it happens, kids have had gay parents for a long time now. Probably since the dawn of ever, certainly by the 1700s. My dad grew up with a kid with gay parents, and he is 71. So at this point it is safe to say the experiment is over"


So, Which is it? Either gays have brought up children constantly since the 1700's or they have not. You cannot both be correct. Again, gays bringing up children is not what im talking about. Its gays adopting children via state adoption agencies.

[Ally]

This only only partly what I was getting at. Your private medical treatment is absolutely none of my business. Your treatment on the NHS however is my business. Just as it will be your business if fertility treatment to gay couples happens via Obamacare.

And yet you want to allow defective straight people to be funded by the NHS? Seems like you are confused you aren't entirely sure what you are arguing at this point. Other than you don't like gay people having kids.

[Ally]

Errata

"Because as it happens, kids have had gay parents for a long time now. Probably since the dawn of ever, certainly by the 1700s. My dad grew up with a kid with gay parents, and he is 71. So at this point it is safe to say the experiment is over"


So, Which is it? Either gays have brought up children constantly since the 1700's or they have not. You cannot both be correct. Again, gays bringing up children is not what im talking about. Its gays adopting children via state adoption agencies.

Er ... I said ADOPT. And gays have not been allowed to adopt for pretty much all time, other than ones funny uncle raising the kids after mom died. But obviously gay people have been raising kids that they got the old-fashioned way, since the dawn of time. But people who were gay weren't allowed to be open about being gay, so clearly there wasn't going to be a study done in the past.

I realize you are trying to back yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself in, but please read the argument more carefully.

[jason_c]

Er ... I said ADOPT. And gays have not been allowed to adopt for pretty much all time, other than ones funny uncle raising the kids after mom died. But obviously gay people have been raising kids that they got the old-fashioned way, since the dawn of time. But people who were gay weren't allowed to be open about being gay, so clearly there wasn't going to be a study done in the past.

I realize you are trying to back yourself out of the corner you've painted yourself in, but please read the argument more carefully.

I clearly stated on page 9 of this thread that I was talking of state adoption agencies. The very same agencies who bend over backwards to home children to a family who are racially & socially suited to the child(for some reason adoption experts consider such suitability important). For these same agencies to then allow the adoption of children by a gay couple seems a leap in the dark. Suitability for the child is either important or it is not. However, uncle Bert and his friend bringing up/adopting their orphaned nephew is fine. It keeps the child within his/her already known family unit.

[Ally]

Really? And isn't a leap in the dark to place a child with a straight couple assuming the child is going to turn out straight? Maybe we should wait until all children have identified themselves as gay or straight before allowing them to be placed! I mean everyone knows straight people have been raising gay kids for all eternity, why can't the reverse be true? It's not like straight parents can turn their gay kids straight, so what makes you think gay parents can turn straight kids gay? So what does "cultural suitability" have to do with it??