Elton John is a great musician . . .

[jckryan]

I'd like to reverse my opinion on same-sex unions/marriages and sperm banks/donor centers. If other states legalize it . . . maybe it may stem the flow of them flooding California . . . right.

Man we are getting it from transplants/lesbians/gays/hipsters from the east and with undocumented immigrants from the South. I don't mind the transplants too much.

 

[JScott]

. . . Rocket Man and a couple of songs other I like.

But when I saw that he and his mate got a baby through a surrogate . . . I just shook my head. They could not adopt. This follows Neil Patrick Harris and his mate and also Rosie O'Donnell.

Again. This is why there should be no legalization of same-sex unions/marriages. Instead of adopting (which would be great), they choose to use science to pro-create. It is not this so-called campaign of hate that they claim is at issue.
It is the fact that once they get married/union legalized, it just opens the door in 'justifying' their use of invtro/surrogacy to have their own babies in order to achieve that family unit.

Sperm banks and donor centers should be closed. To EVERYONE. You go with what life/nature deals you. Don't like it? ADOPT.

All Ive got to say about it is youre not in charge and never will be. An extremists opinion holds no weight.

Back at ya

Is that the best you can do? A couple of sentences?

Youre not worth the effort.

 

[jckryan]

All Ive got to say about it is youre not in charge and never will be. An extremists opinion holds no weight.

Back at ya

Is that the best you can do? A couple of sentences?

Youre not worth the effort.

Maybe . . . you should do some stand-up.

 

[wolf_22]

. . . Rocket Man and a couple of songs other I like.

But when I saw that he and his mate got a baby through a surrogate . . . I just shook my head. They could not adopt. This follows Neil Patrick Harris and his mate and also Rosie O'Donnell.
I think rosie adopted at least one her kids.
Again. This is why there should be no legalization of same-sex unions/marriages. Instead of adopting (which would be great), they choose to use science to pro-create. It is not this so-called campaign of hate that they claim is at issue.
yes it is. not letting someone marry when other consenting adults can is discrimination.
its not their job to adopt the kids straight people don't want.
It is the fact that once they get married/union legalized, it just opens the door in 'justifying' their use of invtro/surrogacy to have their own babies in order to achieve that family unit.
they don't need a justification. it just so happens that gay people don't have to explain themselves to anyone
Sperm banks and donor centers should be closed. To EVERYONE. You go with what life/nature deals you. Don't like it? ADOPT.

you can't force someone to adopt. and adoption takes time and is expensive.

plus - people want biological children. since the dawn of time we put stock in blood. some women want to be pregnant.
and we do treat bio children differnet (that was my bradgelina reference. their bio kids are refered to differently than the adotped ones)

while more people should adopt. you can't force a whole group of people to do so.

a big issue is how hard it is - if you are sick, older, gay, single, unmarried, not rich, ect

but to somehow tie this into the right to be treated like your pairs and marry, is silly.

the only time these two intersect is that gay people can't adopt in Utah and other state because they are 'unwed'

 

[jckryan]

you can't force someone to adopt. and adoption takes time and is expensive.

plus - people want biological children. since the dawn of time we put stock in blood. some women want to be pregnant.
and we do treat bio children differnet (that was my bradgelina reference. their bio kids are refered to differently than the adotped ones)

while more people should adopt. you can't force a whole group of people to do so.

a big issue is how hard it is - if you are sick, older, gay, single, unmarried, not rich, ect

but to somehow tie this into the right to be treated like your pairs and marry, is silly.

the only time these two intersect is that gay people can't adopt in Utah and other state because they are 'unwed'

The whole point was simple:

woman + woman = no babies

man + man = no babies

If the guy upstairs intended for the above equations to occur, then he would have blessed them with that ability. Not for them to go through a drive-thru and order their sperm and eggs because its there.
I really think that if God made someone strerile or gay . . . maybe it is a subtle message to them that it is the end of the line. What is so wrong with adoption? Are same-sex couples really that selfish and self-centered?
A same-sex union being legalized would open the door for biological babies because of that clock. "Straight couples can do it . . . that's dicrimination!"

 

[wolf_22]

while more people should adopt. you can't force a whole group of people to do so.

a big issue is how hard it is - if you are sick, older, gay, single, unmarried, not rich, ect

but to somehow tie this into the right to be treated like your pairs and marry, is silly.

the only time these two intersect is that gay people can't adopt in Utah and other state because they are 'unwed'

The whole point was simple:

woman + woman = no babies

man + man = no babies

If the guy upstairs intended for the above equations to occur, then he would have blessed them with that ability. Not for them to go through a drive-thru and order their sperm and eggs because its there.
I really think that if God made someone strerile or gay . . . maybe it is a subtle message to them that it is the end of the line. What is so wrong with adoption? Are same-sex couples really that selfish and self-centered?
A same-sex union being legalized would open the door for biological babies because of that clock. "Straight couples can do it . . . that's dicrimination!"

not letting them marry is discrimination.

rather you think its a good idea or not, what gives you the right to force people to adopt?

 

[jckryan]

The whole point was simple:

woman + woman = no babies

man + man = no babies

If the guy upstairs intended for the above equations to occur, then he would have blessed them with that ability. Not for them to go through a drive-thru and order their sperm and eggs because its there.
I really think that if God made someone strerile or gay . . . maybe it is a subtle message to them that it is the end of the line. What is so wrong with adoption? Are same-sex couples really that selfish and self-centered?
A same-sex union being legalized would open the door for biological babies because of that clock. "Straight couples can do it . . . that's dicrimination!"

not letting them marry is discrimination.

rather you think its a good idea or not, what gives you the right to force people to adopt?

I don't have the right to force anybody to adopt?! They should not be forced to adopt.
I'm saying their own selfish/self-centered needs overrides what they could not do 70 years ago.

Just because you can go to a sperm bank/donor center pick up some sperm and eggs, does not make it right.

Man can clone things now.

Example: If my kid was dying (God forbid) and I had the ability/resources to clone him . . . should I? I mean I love him and maybe God does not want me to. But hey, man is imperfect. He makes mistakes. You know what? Forget God. Because my love for my child is far greater than any God.

Is that it? If that is your view. Then by all means, get your same-sex union legalized. Just don't have the ceremony in a Catholic, Christian, etc.. church.

 

[wolf_22]

[

I don't have the right to force anybody to adopt?! They should not be forced to adopt.
I'm saying their own selfish/self-centered needs overrides what they could not do 70 years ago.

Just because you can go to a sperm bank/donor center pick up some sperm and eggs, does not make it right.

Man can clone things now.

Example: If my kid was dying (God forbid) and I had the ability/resources to clone him . . . should I? I mean I love him and maybe God does not want me to. But hey, man is imperfect. He makes mistakes. You know what? Forget God. Because my love for my child is far greater than any God.

Is that it? If that is your view. Then by all means, get your same-sex union legalized. Just don't have the ceremony in a Catholic, Christian, etc.. church.

wanting childrena nd wanting biological children isn't seflish. its a want that cuts across nearly all lines

rather you have a baby via sex or science isn't an issue until you start having multiples at a time that can't survive.

as a single woman who wants children - and doesn't want to wait for smeone to come along and decide when I have a future - so i could see myself using a sperm bank.
and if i concieved through intercourse it would be sex pureply for procreation (and hopefully some pleasure) with only me parenting afterward.
is there that big a difference between those two things?

cloning is a whole different issue. you can't compare it.

I don't think god has an issue with love or marriage. thee are gay churchs near my home, when/if my friend gets married in one I'll gladly attend

 

[u2scram]

" You go with what life/nature deals you."

i suspect YOU dont. never had an antibiotic?

 

[jckryan]

[

I don't have the right to force anybody to adopt?! They should not be forced to adopt.
I'm saying their own selfish/self-centered needs overrides what they could not do 70 years ago.

Just because you can go to a sperm bank/donor center pick up some sperm and eggs, does not make it right.

Man can clone things now.

Example: If my kid was dying (God forbid) and I had the ability/resources to clone him . . . should I? I mean I love him and maybe God does not want me to. But hey, man is imperfect. He makes mistakes. You know what? Forget God. Because my love for my child is far greater than any God.

Is that it? If that is your view. Then by all means, get your same-sex union legalized. Just don't have the ceremony in a Catholic, Christian, etc.. church.

wanting childrena nd wanting biological children isn't seflish. its a want that cuts across nearly all lines

rather you have a baby via sex or science isn't an issue until you start having multiples at a time that can't survive.

as a single woman who wants children - and doesn't want to wait for smeone to come along and decide when I have a future - so i could see myself using a sperm bank.
and if i concieved through intercourse it would be sex pureply for procreation (and hopefully some pleasure) with only me parenting afterward.
is there that big a difference between those two things?

cloning is a whole different issue. you can't compare it.

I don't think god has an issue with love or marriage. thee are gay churchs near my home, when/if my friend gets married in one I'll gladly attend

Explore another option objectively.

Lets legalize same-sex unions/marriages.

But if they want the ceremony to be held in a church, same-sex churches have to be established where they can have the ceremony. Not same-sex friendly churches but churches that literally have their own version of the BIble. At least one that makes that one change in Genesis turning Eve into Steve or somthing like that. Its what? Two letters? Even call it an alternative church, making it sound more all inclusive. Saying God created . . . Barbie and created Ken from one of her ribs . . . then he created Edna and Eve and later Adam and Steve. You've got all your bases covered. In this way same-sex couples can have their own biological kids without any conflict with the traditional Bible.
Hey, man has been using passages from the Bible for their own purposes for the longest time (Moon, Koresh, etc..). I'm sure they had a vision (version) from or talked to 'God'.
But I don't think lesbians/gays have to go that far. Either that or having a Buddist or civil ceremony. One that does not have Adam and Eve involved. Same-sex churches can have heterosexual members. This way there is no discrimination and ones religious beliefs are in black and white.

Any objections?

 

[mah127]

Sir Elton is over rated in my opinion. Next.

 

[jckryan]

[

I don't have the right to force anybody to adopt?! They should not be forced to adopt.
I'm saying their own selfish/self-centered needs overrides what they could not do 70 years ago.

Just because you can go to a sperm bank/donor center pick up some sperm and eggs, does not make it right.

Man can clone things now.

Example: If my kid was dying (God forbid) and I had the ability/resources to clone him . . . should I? I mean I love him and maybe God does not want me to. But hey, man is imperfect. He makes mistakes. You know what? Forget God. Because my love for my child is far greater than any God.

Is that it? If that is your view. Then by all means, get your same-sex union legalized. Just don't have the ceremony in a Catholic, Christian, etc.. church.

wanting childrena nd wanting biological children isn't seflish. its a want that cuts across nearly all lines

rather you have a baby via sex or science isn't an issue until you start having multiples at a time that can't survive.

as a single woman who wants children - and doesn't want to wait for smeone to come along and decide when I have a future - so i could see myself using a sperm bank.
and if i concieved through intercourse it would be sex pureply for procreation (and hopefully some pleasure) with only me parenting afterward.
is there that big a difference between those two things?

cloning is a whole different issue. you can't compare it.

I don't think god has an issue with love or marriage. thee are gay churchs near my home, when/if my friend gets married in one I'll gladly attend

Explore another option objectively.

Lets legalize same-sex unions/marriages.

But if they want the ceremony to be held in a church, same-sex churches have to be established where they can have the ceremony. Not same-sex friendly churches but churches that literally have their own version of the BIble. At least one that makes that one change in Genesis turning Eve into Steve or somthing like that. Its what? Two letters? Even call it an alternative church, making it sound more all inclusive. Saying God created . . . Barbie and created Ken from one of her ribs . . . then he created Edna and Eve and later Adam and Steve. You've got all your bases covered. In this way same-sex couples can have their own biological kids without any conflict with the traditional Bible.
Hey, man has been using passages from the Bible for their own purposes for the longest time (Moon, Koresh, etc..). I'm sure they had a vision (version) from or talked to 'God'.
But I don't think lesbians/gays have to go that far. Either that or having a Buddist or civil ceremony. One that does not have Adam and Eve involved. Same-sex churches can have heterosexual members. This way there is no discrimination and ones religious beliefs are in black and white.

Any objections?

Good. It's done, onto the next.

 

[u2scram]

"Sperm banks and donor centers should be closed. To EVERYONE. You go with what life/nature deals you. Don't like it? ADOPT."

its a bit of a chicken and egg argument really. are religious people stupid or does religion make them stupid.

no-one goes with what nature deals. unless they're morons. if you are sick you go to a doctor and you get medicine invented and manufactured by science, and so subvert the will of "the creator". woooo!!

if you live in a cold climate you have a heating system fitted to your house, in a hot climate air conditioning.

and many childless couples have been able to have kids thru the skills of doctors etc. if you believe in some sort of god, then presumably it couldnt have happened without his say so.

but then if you believe in god you're probably so dumb that rational, intelligent thought is beyond you.