Gay Parents Ready Kids for White House Easter Egg Roll

[Gunny]

IMO it is part of the issue.

It is not part of the issue because those who choose to not flaunt their sexuality in everyone's faces for the shock value are not an issue. At least not with me. What they do in privacy is not my concern.



No, you do whatever you want/wish to do. Bigotry is bigotry. Whether it bothers you is here nor there....

Just a fancy label libs like to throw around trying to make anyone who has the balls to take a unpopular with them stand on any given subject. All common sense and logic is tossed aside in favor of catering to an aberrant minority because that's what libs do best -- try to shove the agendas of the aberrant minorities down the throats of the majority.

 

[Dr Grump]

Who gets to decide what is abnormal?

Bingo

 

[manu1959]

My question is just as valid, yet is not considered in the same category. Where can that same young boy learn those things while being raised by one woman? Single motherhood is no longer seen, by the majority, as abnormal. One day homosexual parenting will be seen the same.

the majority of single mothers are single by death or divorce....if by death a man may still be involved..... if by divorce the same..... please do not mix a choice to be gay parents and teach children a gay lifestyle as normal with women that do not have a choice....

 

[Dr Grump]

the majority of single mothers are single by death or divorce....if by death a man may still be involved..... if by divorce the same..... please do not mix a choice to be gay parents and teach children a gay lifestyle as normal with women that do not have a choice....

Most lesbian women have males friends. It ain't that big a deal....

 

[Gunny]

Who gets to decide what is abnormal?

In this case, natural biological function would be the deciding factor. Or, if you don't like that one, then there is the fact that homosexuality has been considered abnormal since the dawm of man.

 

[Gunny]

the majority of single mothers are single by death or divorce....if by death a man may still be involved..... if by divorce the same..... please do not mix a choice to be gay parents and teach children a gay lifestyle as normal with women that do not have a choice....

Yeah. let's don't try that correlation. I was a single parent for several years because I didn't have a choice.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Just a fancy label libs like to throw around trying to make anyone who has the balls to take a unpopular with them stand on any given subject. All common sense and logic is tossed aside in favor of catering to an aberrant minority because that's what libs do best -- try to shove the agendas of the aberrant minorities down the throats of the majority.

I'm not trying to shove anything down anybody's throat. Pun not intended. lol

I'm simply trying to figure out why I'm supposed to view homosexuals as something less than human, just because the majority says so.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Yeah. let's don't try that correlation. I was a single parent for several years because I didn't have a choice.

So we can't touch that argument, because it might offend you?

 

[manu1959]

Most lesbian women have males friends. It ain't that big a deal....

outsourcing male influence....nice!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

In this case, natural biological function would be the deciding factor. Or, if you don't like that one, then there is the fact that homosexuality has been considered abnormal since the dawm of man.

So other things that were considered abnormal since the dawn of man, haven't been regarded as normal now?

 

[Gunny]

So we can't touch that argument, because it might offend you?

What argument? Manu is correct. Single parents are usually single parents not by choice. Homosexuals adopting children create a situation of their choosing.

But anyhoo, that was moer a tongue-in-cheek statement. You'll go a long way trying to offend me, dude.

 

[Dr Grump]

outsourcing male influence....nice!

LOL...well, that is one way of looking at it! :tng:

 

[Gunny]

I'm not trying to shove anything down anybody's throat. Pun not intended. lol

I'm simply trying to figure out why I'm supposed to view homosexuals as something less than human, just because the majority says so.

I didn't say YOU were trying to shove anything down anyone's throat. Nor have I said homosexuals should be viewed as less than human.

They are sexually abnormal, and THAT is how they should be viewed.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

But anyhoo, that was moer a tongue-in-cheek statement. You'll go a long way trying to offend me, dude.

Just yankin your chain your chain a little. We would probably see eye to eye on just about every other politcal issue except the acceptance of homosexuality. I was even on your side of the fence on this until college. I just can't consider gays as something less that human.

 

[Gunny]

So other things that were considered abnormal since the dawn of man, haven't been regarded as normal now?

You're not REALLY going to try the out-of-context, literalist argument are you?

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, simple as that. It defies tha laws of nature. Pretty elementary and obvious.

 

[Gunny]

Just yankin your chain your chain a little. We would probably see eye to eye on just about every other politcal issue except the acceptance of homosexuality. I was even on your side of the fence on this until college. I just can't consider gays as something less that human.

And again, I have not made the argument that homosexuals are less than human. I make only the argument that their sexual behavior is abnormal. Sexual orientation defines only those people who allow it to.

 

[jillian]

You're not REALLY going to try the out-of-context, literalist argument are you?

Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, simple as that. It defies tha laws of nature. Pretty elementary and obvious.

Not really.... homosexual behavior occurs in nature. Haven't you heard about the gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo ?

 

[Hobbit]

Not really.... homosexual behavior occurs in nature. Haven't you heard about the gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo ?

Yeah, and polygamy, fornication, infanticide, child abandonment, and patriarchy are also naturally occuring behavior in animals, but I don't hear you standing for the rights of people to perform the perfectly natural act of infanticide.

 

[Kagom]

Sorry. Wrong.

------

During the last few years it has become possible not only to determine whether HIV is present in a blood or plasma sample, but also to determine the particular subtype of the virus. Studying the subtype of virus of some of the earliest known instances of HIV infection can help to provide clues about the time it first appeared in humans and its subsequent evolution.

Three of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:

1. A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.
2. HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
3. HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959 has suggested7 that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s; much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

In January 2000 however, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa . The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution. If accurate, it means that HIV was in existence before many scenarios (such as the OPV and conspiracy theories) suggest.

What about HIV-2? When did that get passed to humans?

Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

In May 2003, a group of Belgian researchers lead by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme, published a report8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals and SIV samples taken from sooty mangabeys, Dr Vannedamme concluded that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years or so). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had possibly frequented local prostitutes.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm

Thanks for sharing that. It was interesting. I definitely just learned something new!

 

[jillian]

Yeah, and polygamy, fornication, infanticide, child abandonment, and patriarchy are also naturally occuring behavior in animals, but I don't hear you standing for the rights of people to perform the perfectly natural act of infanticide.

Well, that's almost an analogy...... :fifty: